WHAT THE EU TREATY OF LISBON DOES(legally accurate).

[Sub-X]

EU Treaty Videos
Peoples Movement

You have to eat it all!

Ringmasters of the EU

Video's produced by the European Referendum Campaign.

Andy Storey

Andy Storey from the Centre for Development Studies in UCD speaking on 'The EU and Neo-colonialism' at a lecture organised by the People's Movement in Dublin on 28 November 2007.

Ben Hayes

Ben Hayes from the organisation Statewatch speaking on 'The Erosion of Civil Liberties in the EU' at a lecture organised by the People's Movement in Dublin on 23 January 2008.

Bob Crow

Bob Crow from the Rail Maritime and Transport Union (Britain) speaking at a lecture organised by the People's Movement in Dublin on 20 November 2007.

Brian Denny

Brian Denny from Trade Unionists against the EU Constitution (Britain) speaking at a lecture organised by the People's Movement in Dublin on 20 November 2007.

[Sub-X]

Slovenian Presidency welcomes the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty by the parliaments of Latvia and Lithuania
http://www.eu2008.si/en/News_and_Documents/Press_Releases/May/0508Lizbonska_Latvija_Litva.html
08.05.2008

Slovenian Presidency welcomes the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in the parliaments of Latvia and Lithuania. The two countries have thus joined the other Member States that had already endorsed the Treaty in their parliaments.

The Treaty of Lisbon certainly represents a solid and relevant basis for further shaping of our common European future. It will enable the European Union to face the challenges of the 21st century, not only internally, but also in its external relations, which will bring additional benefits to all EU citizens and Member States. Upon the entry into force of the new Treaty, the EU will become more efficient and its functioning more transparent. Moreover, through instruments, such as civil initiative, participation of national parliaments in the supervision of respecting the principle of subsidiarity and the extension of co-decision procedure to practically all areas of EU activity, the Union will come closer to its citizens and become more democratic.

Each ratification is an important step forward on the path to the ultimate goal. The Presidency is closely following the ratification procedures in the Member States; it takes note that they are well underway and that the Treaty enjoys the necessary support. Altogether, the Treaty has been endorsed by parliaments of thirteen Member States so far. Apart from Latvia and Lithuania, it has already been ratified by Hungary, Slovenia, Malta, Romania, France, Bulgaria, Poland, Slovak Republic, Portugal, Denmark, and Austria. The backing the Treaty enjoys is a positive incentive for reaching the common goal of all EU Member States – that the Treaty would take effect on 1 January 2009.

More about the Lisbon Treaty, details of ratification procedures in the Member States, and the benefits the Treaty brings to EU citizens – available on the web site: Europa - Treaty of Lisbon

[Sub-X]

Lisbon Treaty a Bad Deal for Workers - Sinn Fein
http://www.waterford-today.ie/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3023&Itemid=1&ed=287
Fri May 9 2008

No2 Lisbon Campaign Manager Pauline Humphreys and Sinn Féin County Councillor Brendan Mansfield spoke about the effect of the Lisbon Treaty on Workers' Rights.

"It is fitting that we mark May Day, International Workers' Day, by drawing attention to the threat to workers' rights contained in the Lisbon Treaty" said Pauline Humphreys.

"Recent decisions by the EU have marked a clear shift away from the European Social Model. The Lisbon Treaty underpins this direction. If ratified this Treaty will deepen social exclusion throughout the Union and will fundamentally undermine workers rights.

"Successive surrendering of workers' rights by EU institutions at the behest of a weighty business lobby continues to leave millions of workers throughout Europe with decreasing employment security. Hard won terms and conditions are being stripped away and workers are pitted against each other in what is now popularly referred to as the race to the bottom.

"The Lisbon Treaty fails to address the core issue for workers in Ireland and beyond. It offers no remedy for the consistent running down of wages and social protections for workers in the European Union." Cllr Mansfield added:

"Failure by European leaders to agree a Temporary Agency Workers Directive which could protect Europe's low income low skilled workers is scandalous particularly in light of recent European Court of Justice judgements. Hard won rights which took decades of struggle to achieve are now being frittered away not for competitiveness but to appease share holders and fund increasingly hefty wage increases of those already in the top income bracket.

"The Protocol on the Internal Market and Competition Protocol within the Lisbon Treaty mandates the EU to ensure that 'competition is not distorted'. This provides the EU with a mandate to remove 'distortions' from the provision of services. Such distortions could include workers rights regulations, as well as protective markets, state 'monopolies and public funding.

"Article 16(b) of the Treaty will subject public services to new 'economic and financial conditions' including healthcare and education making such services subject to the rules of competition. It is worth noting that two days ago (April 29th) IBEC stated at the National Forum on Europe that 'A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty creates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation such as Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment.'

"Article 2(2) introduces Price Stability as an aim of the European Union for the first time. Naturally we do not object to measures to curb inflation however if it were used as a tool to limit member state public funding or to restrict member state budget deficits then we believe this would play a negative national economic role. If Price Stability were to conflict with other aims such as full employment or social progress, it would be the ECJ who would determine which aim has precedence rather than national parliaments.

"This combined attack on the provision of public services and workers rights completely undermines the European Social Model.

"The Charter of Fundamental Rights offers no extension of EU law in relation to fundamental rights as stated by Minister of State for Europe Dick Roche on the 4th of March 2008. He added that the Charter 'does not extend the field of application of Union law or establish any new power or task for the Union'. The Charter does not guarantee the right to strike and states (Article 28) that workers have the right to collective bargaining and to take strike action only 'in accordance with national laws and practices' In light of the recent ECJ judgements this already weakened 'right' is further undermined.

"The Lisbon Treaty is a bad deal for workers. Europe deserves better."

[Sub-X]

Lisbon treaty is no manifesto for workers' rights
http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2008/04/713april/lisbon-treaty-is-no-manifesto-for-workers-rights/60246.aspx
09.04.2008

All defenders of workers' rights should revise any vision of the Lisbon treaty as a manifesto for workers' rights.

Two cases in the European Court of Justice (ECJ) have shaken the foundations of labour rights in the European Union.

The Laval ruling in December limited the right of trade unions to take industrial action such as strikes and blockades.

Eroding workers' rights even further, the Rüffert ruling last week (3 April) stated that the German Land of Lower Saxony had no right to demand adherence to the local collective agreement in a public procurement contract. Such adherence would have meant higher wages.

Now parts of the European labour movement are setting their hopes on the new Lisbon treaty, for example the Swedish Social Democrats. Their hopes are pinned on the Lisbon treaty making the Charter of Fundamental Rights legally binding. But this hope will most likely turn out to be false.

Market interests will take priority over the right to take industrial action, even if the new treaty does come into force. This was confirmed in writing by Margot Wallström, the European Commission vice-president,  in October 2007.

Wallström answered my written question about the Charter of Fundamental Rights being made legally binding by the Lisbon treaty. I asked if this changed anything in the relationship between fundamental rights and the four fundamental freedoms. In other words: will employees' rights become stronger in relation to the common market?

Wallström answered: “As regards the relationship between fundamental rights and the four fundamental freedoms (free movement of persons, goods, services, and capital), the [ECJ] has developed clear principles. In the Commission's view, this case-law will not be affected in any way by making the Charter legally binding.”

To me this is a very clear: no, nothing changes. The principles that shaped the Laval and Rüffert rulings will not be changed by the Lisbon treaty.

The question and the answer (number P-4351/07) are available on the European Parliament website. I would like to invite all defenders of labour rights to consider Wallström's words. And to revise any vision they may have of the Lisbon  treaty as a manifesto for workers' rights. Because clearly it is not.

[Sub-X]

German foreign minister favours EU army
http://euobserver.com/9/26107?rss_rk=1
08.05.2008

Germany's foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, has indicated he would like to see a European army established.

Speaking at a Social Democrat security policy conference in Berlin on Monday (5 May), Mr Steinmeier said he favoured the setting up of a "European armed force" and that he would like to see moves in this direction speeded up.

German daily Tagespiegel reported Mr Steinmeier as referring to the fact that the EU's new treaty, currently undergoing ratification across the European Union, allows for the possibility of a group of member states to "move ahead" in defence policy.

He noted that from Berlin's point of view, France is the key partner for this. Mr Steinmeier said he had already spoken with his French counterpart, Bernard Kouchner, on concrete steps to improve common areas in the military field.

These include the areas of transport, helicopter capacity and procurement.

The end result of a consolidation of military capacities must be a European army, said Mr Steinmeier, according to German news agency DPA.

At the same conference, other leading politicians from the Social Democratic party - which currently forms part of the governing coalition with the Christian Democrats in Germany - also spoke out in favour of the idea.

Former defence minister and head of the SPD group Peter Struck said: "There will still be opposition to the idea of a European army as there once was against the single currency, the euro.

"But single states are no longer able to handle the threats of today," he continued.

The German politicians' comments appear to be in line with the views of French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has in the past made several statements on the need for common European defence.

The French president has more recently not been so vocal on the issue. This is being seen as a deliberate ploy not to upset the EU treaty ratification process, particularly in neutral Ireland - the only country to have a referendum on the charter and where military issues are highly sensitive with the electorate.

An email from a Dublin-based UK official after a briefing by an official in the Irish Department of Foreign Affairs that was leaked to the press last month suggested that one of the reasons for having the treaty referendum before summer rather than in autumn was due to a fear of "unhelpful developments during the French presidency – particularly related to EU defence."

In addition Britain, as the other serious military power in the EU along with France, has also reacted coolly to Mr Sarkozy's push for more integration in EU defence. London has also yet to ratify the EU treaty.

But Mr Sarkozy is expected to return to the issue in the second half of this year, during his stint at the EU helm.

The EU treaty, which has to be ratified by all 27 countries to come into force, allows for a group of member states who are politically willing to go forward to structured cooperation in defence.

[Sub-X]

MEPs vote to tighten up rules for Brussels lobbyists
http://euobserver.com/9/26112
09.05.2008

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - MEPs have voted to tighten up the rules governing the lobbyists, requiring those seeking to influence officials in the EU's three main institutions to register themselves and provide income details.

The resolution, passed by an overwhelming majority of euro-deputies, suggests that lobbyists have to adhere to a code of conduct and face sanctions, such as being barred from an institution, if they flout the rules.

MEPs want the rules to apply to the European Parliament, the European Commission, which is responsible for proposing EU laws, and the council of ministers, which represents member states.

Once a lobbyist - defined as anyone "influencing the policy formulation and decision-making processes of the European institutions" - is registered in one of these institutions, then they will be automatically registered in the other two as well, according to the one-stop-shop proposal agreed by the euro-deputies.

The register would require professional lobbyists to list their major clients and the amount they spend on lobbying, while think-tanks would be obliged to state their main sources of funding.

Meanwhile, a "legislative footprint" would list all those who have a "significant input" into laws worked on by MEPs, but this would only be voluntary.

"It is an important step towards more transparency in European legislation," said Ingo Friedrich, the German centre-right MEP, in charge of the dossier in the parliament.

However, the measures have been criticised by some MEPs, particularly from the Green group, as they fall short of strict financial disclosure, with the details to be thrashed out later.

In addition, they voted to exempt lawyers from the measures.

"Lawyers are exempted from the scope of rules, which, given all available evidence is absurd," said Italian Green MEP Monica Frassoni.

"Lawyers play an increasingly important role in influencing policy in Brussels and they promote themselves as such on their own websites," she added.

The measures are hoped to be in place for the European Parliament in time for the European elections next year in June. They would update the minimal register that has been in place in the parliament since 1996.

For its part, the European Commission, which has been working on transparency rules for the past three years, is expected to launch its voluntary online register next month.

The three institutions are to set up a working group to try and come up with some common rules in the area in light of the MEPs' vote. Of the three institutions, the council has shown the least interest in the transparency move so far.

There are thought to be about 15,000 lobbyists operating in Brussels, of which 5000 are registered in the European Parliament.

Brussels has been making noises about shedding light on the system since recent high-profile scandals in Washington came to light, with some fearing the same sort of corruption could be exposed in the EU capital.

In addition, MEPs are set to gain even greater powers over EU legislation when the proposed new EU treaty comes into place, possibly next year, increasing the need for more stringent controls.

[Sub-X]

Danes likely to have two referendums on EU treaty op-outs
http://euobserver.com/9/26115
09.05.2008

EUOBSERVER / COPENHAGEN - The Danish centre-right government has launched negotiations with opposition parties to agree on a strategy for scrapping opt-outs from the EU treaties, with the government hoping to abolish the derogations in two steps, according to Danish media reports.

Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is set to call for a referendum in September to remove the derogation from judicial and defence co-operation and at the same time announce a subsequent referendum on the euro.

Denmark is not bound by first-pillar legislation on justice and home affairs and EU citizenship and does not take part in EU defence co-operation.

Denmark is also not obliged to take part in the single currency and refused to abolish its national currency, the Krone, in a referendum in 2000.

The liberal-conservative coalition government is eager to scrap the opt-outs and have the country participating fully in the EU.

Scrapping the opt-outs are also among the few bits of unfinished businesses for Mr Rasmussen, a liberal politician, before he could eventually accept an international post.

Mr Rasmussen has so far firmly rejected all queries and insists he is not a candidate for any international posts and that he has no plans to quit his job as Denmark's prime minister.

But an unusually busy travel schedule has made most Danes believe that their prime minister, in power since 2001, is in fact hunting for a promotion.

Last month, Danish national news agency Ritzau went through his diary for this year and found that he had spent almost as many days abroad as at home: 53 in Denmark and 47 on foreign trips.

According to Liberal insiders, Mr Rasmussen is already the unofficial candidate of the European Liberals for a top post in the EU.

Big-bang referendum difficult to win

Opinion polls have suggested a big-bang referendum including all four Danish opt-outs would be very difficult to win – but taking the issues one-by-one would increase the chances of a yes.

According to a fresh poll by the Greens polling institute, published by business paper Boersen on Friday (9 May), a slim plurality of 43 percent would accept scrapping all four derogations in such a big-bang referendum, 39 percent would vote no and 18 percent are undecided.

Taken one-by-one the chances for a yes would grow. A large majority - 63 percent - is ready to scrap the defence opt-out, with 22 percent against.

A less comfortable majority (38%) want to end the judicial opt-out, with 31 percent against.

Scrapping the Danish currency and joining the euro is also supported by a majority of 54 percent, but the opposition remains high, on 42 percent.

The government is eager to have the Socialist People's Party included in its Yes front, but the party is still opposed to the euro. It could however join the Yes front if the judicial and defence opt-outs are singled out for a special referendum.

Another uncertain aspect of the plan is the outcome the Irish referendum on 12 June on the Lisbon Treaty. Only if the treaty is ratified in all 27 member states would the new top jobs such as an EU president be available.

[Sub-X]

Serbs go to polls divided over EU path
http://euobserver.com/9/26110
09.05.2008

EUOBERVER / BRUSSELS – Serbian voters will go to the polls on Sunday (11 May) for what is being billed as decisive elections for the country's EU future.

The main parties in the running are the pro-Western centrists of president Boris Tadic's Democratic Party (DS); the nationalist Serbian Radical Party (SRS) currently led by eurosceptic Tomislav Nikolic, and outgoing prime minister Vojislav Kostunica's conservative Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS).

Polls have been indicating that the DS and SRS emerge neck and neck, but neither would win with a sufficient majority to form a government on its own.

Mr Kostunica's DSS would come third, according to polls, and could then have a decisive role in the formation of the future coalition government.

In a similar scenario last year, the DSS also come third, the DS second and the SRS first. After months of negotiations, a coalition was formed with Mr Tadic's centrists, making Mr Kostunica the country's premier.

The fragile coalition collapsed in March however, following disagreements over Kosovo – which unilaterally declared independence in February – and EU integration, and the subsequent resignation of Mr Kostunica.

While this time the Democrats have excluded forming an alliance with the conservatives, a coalition between the conservatives and the radicals seems increasingly likely.

The EU's fears

This is just the political set-up the EU least favours. It has made no secret of its wish to see the pro-Western forces win Sunday's vote.

After the 27-nation bloc angered Serbia with its reaction to Kosovo's independence -recognised by a majority of EU member states despite Belgrade's strong opposition - it then intensified political signals to show Serbian voters that their future lies with the EU.

Last week, the EU foreign ministers agreed to sign a pre-accession deal with Belgrade – a Stabilisation and Association Agreement (SAA) – despite the country's failure to cooperate fully with the UN war crimes tribunal and to arrest remaining war crimes fugitives.

Cooperation with the tribunal has long been a condition for allowing Serbia closer to the EU.

Additionally, 16 EU states on Tuesday (6 May) agreed to make visas for all valid Serb applicants free of charge, and on Wednesday EU justice commissioner Jacques Barrot presented a road map for full visa liberalisation with Serbia.

An unwise strategy?

But these EU attempts to woo Serbian citizens ahead of the elections may not have the results the bloc is hoping for, some observers argue.

Gergana Noutcheva, an analyst with the Brussels-based think tank Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), said the EU move to sign the SAA represented a "political shortcut for purely strategic reasons," but she doubted a possible DS victory would be the result of the signing of this pre-accession deal.

"The DS electorate is already convinced of Serbia's European perspective anyway," while those who would rather vote for the radicals would hardly be seduced by the SAA, Ms Noutcheva said.

Nationalists have been strongly opposed to the signing of the document which Mr Kostunica has called "an act against the state" seeing it as an indirect recognition of Kosovo's independence.

According to the analyst, instead of "picking favourites", the EU should work for building a consensus within the country's political spectrum that EU integration is Serbia's only possible future.

Only then will the process of "Europeanisation" of Serbia be boosted, she concluded.

[Sub-X]

PRESS STATEMENT
The Civil and Public Service Union and The Lisbon Treaty Referendum
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/203
May 9th, 2008

In recent days, on various media outlets, the General Secretary of the Civil, Public and Services Union, Mr. Blair Horan, has spoken and been quoted in support of the Lisbon Treaty.

On RTE’s 'Morning Ireland' programme on Tuesday, 6th May there was an item broadcast between General Secretary Designate of the TEEU, Mr. Eamon Devoy and Mr. Horan on the treaty where it was reported that the TEEU have called for a NO vote and the CPSU were cited as the union calling for a YES vote from its members.

On the same Tuesday evening on Today FM’s The Last Word show Mr. Horan again advocated a ‘YES’ vote.

In the expressing of his own personal viewpoint or indeed that of the Alliance For Europe group to which he is affiliated, Mr. Horan may have given the impression that the CPSU, as a union affiliated to the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, were supporting the ‘YES’ campaign in the forthcoming referendum.

This position is factually incorrect.

General Secretary Blair Horan reasoned in a personal capacity and was not representing CPSU policy.

The Executive Committee of the CPSU have yet to come to a decision on the union’s position in relation to the Lisbon Treaty.

Indeed a debate on the treaty for CPSU members is currently being scheduled through Mr. Horan’s office.


Should you require any further information on this press release, contact the undersigned.

Denis Keane           CPSU Executive Committee (Personal Capacity) 087-6764015
Sinead Kane           CPSU Executive Committee (Personal Capacity) 087-2242720
Terry Kelleher        CPSU Executive Committee (Personal Capacity) 087-2857665
Lorraine McMahon CPSU Exec Committee (Personal Capacity) 086-0410449
Deirdre Quinlan     CPSU Executive Committee (Personal Capacity) 087-6893245
Joe Roe                  CPSU Executive Committee (Personal Capacity) 087-2327999

[oshea.declan]

If Ireland doesn't Vote No to this I'm practicing a South African accent and will pretend to be a South African because it will be shameful to be Irish.I keep picturing some of the Rothchilds and Venetian Black Nobility sitting over their Sunday dinners and laughing about the Stupid Irish who voted yes in the Lisbon Treaty referendum - maybe they'll add even more fluoride to the Irish water supply.

[Sub-X]

If Ireland doesn't Vote No to this I'm practicing a South African accent and will pretend to be a South African because it will be shameful to be Irish.I keep picturing some of the Rothchilds and Venetian Black Nobility sitting over their Sunday dinners and laughing about the Stupid Irish who voted yes in the Lisbon Treaty referendum - maybe they'll add even more fluoride to the Irish water supply.

The Irish government have tried to pull the same crap as they did with the Nice Treaty,they don't want people to understand it,just vote Yes on it.I heard some businessman from the Yes camp telling people that if they didn't understand it,don't bother voting on it.The fact that Ireland has only been an independent republic for 86 years will be a major factor in peoples decision to vote No,a strong sense of patriotism and the fact that nobody understand the treaty so they will vote NO.It is so easy to point out to people how one sided the MSM is pushing this treaty as well as the fear the government on both sides are trying to sell people too.France and Holland reject the Nice Treaty and shock,horror didnt affect them too badly.

As for the Rothschild's thinking about the stupid Irish , I like to look at it that our tiny little country is standing between their plans being achieved(what a pain the arse we must be to them  ,look how easily other European countries had their right to vote taken away from them.

I wouldn't give up hope just yet 

[Sub-X]

People have the right to say No if EU is to be democratic - Workers Party
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/208
May 12th, 2008

The Workers’ Party have said that if the European Union is to be democratic then it must accept that the people of the EU have the right to a say on its political, economic and social direction.
 
Cork Workers’ Party chairman Ted Tynan said that there was a very serious democratic deficit at the heart of the European Union and that major changes in the union’s legal and political structures such as those envisaged by the Lisbon Treaty should be discussed and participated in by the whole people of the European Union rather than being handed down in a patronising and undemocratic “we know best” manner.
 
“We are constantly being lectured that we must be ‘good Europeans’ but surely being a good European must also mean having a real say in how Europe is run. The European Commission and governments cannot expect the people of Europe to merely take their word that the Lisbon Treaty is good for them. People should  have the right to decide what type of European Union they want and not simply accept the Lisbon Treaty as if it were a spoon of cod liver oil being administered to a defiant child”, said Mr. Tynan.
 
He said that the Lisbon Treaty was being handed down from on high as if were written on tablets of stone. “Perhaps if the EU commission stopped talking down to the people and listened to their needs they would learn something”, said Mr. Tynan who added that no referendum should be run on the basis of rumour and threats which had been the hallmark of all recent EU treaties. “Information is what people want, not innuendo or intimidation”, declared Ted Tynan.

[Sub-X]

Irish Foreign Affairs
http://www.pana.ie/download/IrishForeignAffairs.pdf
Volume 1, Number 1
April - June 2008

Irish Foreign Affairs-April - June 2008

[Sub-X]

Lisbon Treaty 'not impenetrable': Cowen
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0512/eulisbon.html
12 May 2008

Taoiseach Brian Cowen has said there will be sufficient, independently verified information about the Lisbon Treaty available to all the electorate to enable them to make a choice on 12 June.

Speaking on RTÉ Radio's News At One, Mr Cowen said he had not read the treaty cover to cover, but argued it was not an impenetrable document. 

He said there was information available on what the treaty means and that people needed to know was what was being asked of them.

He said that voters were being asked to make the EU a more effective and efficient decision-making process.

The Taoiseach said there was nothing in the Lisbon Treaty that would lead to a change in Ireland's rate of corporation tax, adding that Ireland is a sovereign state in relation to tax levels.

He also said the best guarantee to help farming policies in Ireland is for farmers to vote Yes.

Meanwhile, Sinn Féin has accused two Government ministers of being unaware of key aspects of the Lisbon Treaty.

The party's Dublin MEP, Mary Lou McDonald, says former Enterprise Minister Micheál Martin denies Ireland will loose its veto over the outcome of the International Trade Agreement.

The MEP also says that the Defence Minister, Willie O'Dea, appears unaware that Ireland will be unable to block other EU states coming together to form mini military alliances.

Ms McDonald has said ministers should 'brush up' on the detail of the treaty document before continuing to pursue a Yes vote and slogan-driven campaign.

The MEP has also asked the Taoiseach to explain why he thinks the treaty is good for Ireland.


Referendum set for Thursday 12 June

Earlier today, 12 June was officially appointed as the polling day for the referendum by Environment Minister John Gormley.

Polling will take place between 7am and 10pm on that date, which is a Thursday.

The minister has appointed Maurice Coughlan, a Principal Officer in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to be the referendum returning officer.

Every Irish citizen who is included in the 2008/2009 register of electors is entitled to vote at the referendum. The total electorate currently stands at 3,051,278.

Those not on the register may be eligible to apply for inclusion on the supplement to the register. To be eligible, a person must be a citizen of Ireland, must be 18 years of age by polling day and must be ordinarily resident in the State.

An application for entry on the supplement can be obtained from city/county councils or downloaded at
www.checktheregister.ie.

Any applications must be made by 24 May.

Parties launch referendum campaigns

Fianna Fáil launched its Yes campaign for the EU Lisbon Reform Treaty today.

At the launch, Mr Cowen said he was confident all members of Government would be supporting a Yes vote.

He said all members of the Fianna Fáil party and parliamentary party, let alone the Cabinet, were fully supportive of the treaty.

He said the treaty was fundamental to what Fianna Fáil believes, how it thinks and where it was going as a party.

Mr Cowen said anyone who had a conscientious problem with the treaty would have to consider that issue outside the context of the parliamentary party.

Launching the Labour party's Yes campaign yesterday, Eamon Gilmore said the treaty would strengthen individual rights and those of Irish citizens at home.

He said the treaty provided for greater openness and accountability to European decision-making.

Meanwhile the Socialist Party is starting the final phase of its No campaign.

Over the weekend, an opinion poll showed a ten-point lead for the Yes side in the upcoming referendum.

But with the poll date a month away, more than a third of voters are still undecided.

Responding to the Red C poll in the Sunday Business Post, Sinn Féin said the No campaign is not a lost cause.

[Sub-X]

Sutherland: Voting yes in nation’s interest
http://www.irishexaminer.com/text/story.asp?j=gbgbqlgbsnauql&p=6677xy4&n=6677114
10 May 2008

FORMER World Trade chief Peter Sutherland hit out at the Lisbon Treaty no campaign yesterday, warning the debate on the upcoming referendum had been “bedevilled by inaccuracy”.
He joined leading figures from Fine Gael as the party launched a plea for voters to back the treaty in the interest of future generations. Mr Sutherland said Ireland was about to decide on further integrating with Europe, which had been a core policy for 40 years.

“The whole debate here on the Treaty of Lisbon, has, to date, been uninspiring and intensely negative. It has also been bedevilled by inaccuracy and cynicism. The Irish people deserve better.”

Individually, European Union nations were too small economically, politically and geographically to face international challenges ahead, like climate change, tackling food prices and the fight against crime.

Speaking at the National College of Ireland in Dublin city centre, Mr Sutherland was highly critical of those opposing the treaty.

The reasoning of the no campaigners was “palpably false”, he alleged. The treaty would not remove Ireland’s “absolute right” to stop EU laws affecting rules governing Irish corporation tax or even direct taxation. It was even more absurd to suggest a no vote would interfere with inward investment in Ireland as well as our own neutrality. It would be a decision that would be totally “irrational and contrary to our interests as a country”.

Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny warned that Taoiseach Brian Cowen needed to get his newly promoted cabinet out on the streets campaigning for a yes vote.

Farmers were confused the treaty would affect their sector under the Common Agriculture Policy.

Our economy was best served staying at the heart of Europe, Mr Kenny argued.

Former party leader Garret FitzGerald said the removal of certain vetoes at EU level under the treaty would prevent their future abuse and protect our interest.

The Labour Party are set to launch their yes campaign tomorrow.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Peter Sutherland is currently serving as Chairman of both BP and Goldman Sachs International (a registered UK broker-dealer, a subsidiary of Goldman Sachs), and is a non-executive director of the Royal Bank of Scotland Group. He has formerly served on the board of ABB,also on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group, a chairman of the Trilateral Commission[1] and vice chairman of the European Round Table of Industrialists.

[Sub-X]

Serbia's pro-Europe forces claim election win
http://euobserver.com/9/26121
12.05.2008

The European Union is set to breathe a sign of relief as the pro-Western alliance led by President Boris Tadic won Sunday's parliamentary elections, but the country's nationalists have warned that they too can hammer out a coalition government.

According to projected election results reported by an independent monitoring group, the Centre for Free Elections and Democracy, Mr Tadic's Democratic Party and its allies gained 38.7 percent of the votes and secured 103 out of 250 seats in the country's parliament - not enough to form a coalition on his own.

The Serbian Radical Party of Tomislav Nikolic took 29.1 percent and 77 seats, while outgoing prime minister Vojislav Kostunica and his nationalist Democratic Party of Serbia won 11.3 percent and 30 seats.

The Socialists of the late Slobodan Milosevic with 7.9 percent of the votes and 20 seats in the parliament are set to play a decisive role, as parties need to have at least 126 MPs in order to put in place a stable government.

Of the some seven million Serbs eligible to vote, 60.7 percent participated in the poll.

"Serbs have undoubtedly confirmed a clear European path," Mr Tadic told crowds on Sunday (11 May). He has previously described the vote as "a form of referendum" on whether or not Serbia will be a member of the EU.

Yet he rejected any softening of Belgrade's stance on Kosovo - which unilaterally seceded from Serbia on 17 February - saying: "We have two strategic goals for Serbia - one is Serbia in the EU and the other is territorial integrity of Serbia. The new government is never going to recognise the independence of Kosovo."

Kosovo played a central role during the election campaign, with the nationalists linking the issue with Belgrade's EU prospects, while Mr Tadic keeping the two matters separate.

But the Radicals' leader Tomislav Nikolic warned Mr Tadic that his party could also form a coalition government. There were "very clear possibilities of a coalition, which does not include the Democratic Party," he said.

He added that Serbia would not have a government at all and would have to go to new elections, unless his Radical Party teams up with the nationalists of outgoing prime minister Kostunica and the Socialists.

"This election showed that for a majority of Serbs the top objective is a sovereign Serbia within its internationally recognised borders and only secondly European Union membership," Mr Nikolic was cited as saying by Reuters.

The EU's Slovene presidency "warmly" welcomed the victory of the pro-European forces, and expressed the hope that a new government will soon be formed with a clear European agenda.

"Provided that the necessary conditions are met ... this should enable Serbia to advance further on its EU path, including the candidate status," reads the presidency's written statement.

If no coalition is formed by mid-September, the country will hold new elections - although observers say this is unlikely be the case.

According to political analyst and former foreign minister Goran Svilanovic, "a convincing DS victory [of Mr Tadic] over the Radicals leaves the possibility for speeding up the negotiations over a new cabinet."

"Fast formation of a new cabinet would stabilise the state, since the investors are standing aside and monitoring what's happening," he said, AFP news agency reports.

Another analyst, Sonja Liht, described the outcome as a "huge blow" to the nationalist camp. "[Mr] Kostunica played on only one card, and he lost. Kosovo is important ... but after 10 years under Milosevic, people did not want to sacrifice the chance of a better life for empty promises," she told AFP.

[Sub-X]

IBEC's Submission to the National Forum on Europe Lets The Cat Out Of The Bag Over Lisbon Treaty
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/209
May 12th, 2008

The Lisbon Reform Treaty creates the legal basis for the liberalisation of services of general economic interest (Art. 106). A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty creates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation such as Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment.

The entire submission is below.

IBEC’s position on the Lisbon "Reform" Treaty April 2008

IBEC strongly supports the adoption of the Treaty in the forthcoming referendum in Ireland

IBEC has been following the development of the Lisbon Reform Treaty and has evaluated the final published text.

Institutional Arrangements

Arrangements in the Nice Treaty would not have withstood the test of time. For any state or international organisation to work to the best of its ability, effective and efficient institutions must be set in place. IBEC supports the efforts made to clarify responsibilities and prepare the European Union for the future. Key amongst the proposed changes to institutional arrangements:

Ireland will have twelve seats in the European Parliament for the 2009-14 session.

Ireland is guaranteed a Commissioner in the 2009-2014 College of Commissioners, and after that the College will be reduced and the seats rotated on a strict basis of equality all Member States.

The powers of the European Parliament are extended giving it equal powers to the Council of Ministers for a significant number of EU decisions.

The way in which Qualified Majority Voting is calculated is changed with the introduction (from 2014) of a double majority voting system. At the same time unanimity voting will be continued in particularly sensitive areas, e.g in relation to taxation.
A President of the European Council will be appointed, bringing greater continuity and consistency

Importantly, under new rules, the role of National Parliaments is strengthened.

All of these changes taken together give us a balanced, comprehensive and most importantly durable blueprint for the European Union.

Key Policy Changes

Whilst the institutional changes are very important, a number of other changes made in the Treaty of Lisbon are key for the business community.

Amongst the ‘objectives’ of the Union, the goals of a ‘highly competitive social market economy’, ‘price stability’ and ‘balanced economic growth’ are affirmed. This is important for companies, and consistent with the goals of the Lisbon Strategy and Growth Pact.

In key areas for Irish business a decision will only be agreed if all member states approve. This means that any member state will have a veto on decisions in relation to Taxation, including Corporation Tax, key areas of Social Security Policy and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).

The Lisbon Reform Treaty reaffirms commitments to the harmonisation of world trade, the abolition of restrictions on international trade and the lowering of customs tariffs and barriers. The Lisbon Reform Treaty also contains a commitment to cooperate with third countries and to provide development aid (Art. 129). Stable and flourishing emerging economies are good for European and Irish trade because they provide new export markets and opportunities for Foreign Direct Investment.

The Lisbon Reform Treaty lays down the objective of high level employment. To this end, the Treaty prescribes that Member States and the European Union shall develop a coordinated strategy for employment (Art. 146). One reason for Ireland’s economic success has been the coordination of employment guidelines at European level and the exchange of best practice among EU Member States.

The Lisbon Reform Treaty implements energy security as a policy of the European Union (Art. 194) and refers to a spirit of solidarity between member states when it comes to difficulties in energy supply. The Lisbon Reform Treaty also promotes the interconnection of energy networks. A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty will assist Ireland in meeting the well documented challenges for this country in this area and create new jobs in this important field.

Through our membership of the EU many markets have been subject to liberalisation and through this process new business opportunities have been created for Irish companies. The Lisbon Reform Treaty creates the legal basis for the liberalisation of services of general economic interest (Art. 106). A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty creates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation such as Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment.

Conclusion

Ireland is one of the most globalised economies in the world: Irish business fully understands the importance of European integration to national prosperity and is thus deeply committed to the EU project.

The Treaty of Lisbon has an important role to play in enabling the European Union to address major challenges that lie ahead – for all of these reasons IBEC endorses the Lisbon Reform Treaty and strongly supports its adoption in the forthcoming referendum in Ireland.

[Sub-X]

Walshe is strong enough to resist Yes men pressure on Lisbon
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/273/1/
12 May 2008

The Irish Farmer's Association President, Padraig Walshe, cannot allow himself to be bullied into supporting the Lisbon Treaty, Libertas Chairman Declan Ganley told the Forum on Europe this evening.
 
Speaking at the forum's Galway regional meeting, Mr. Ganley said that the Treaty was the "death-knell" for rural Ireland.
 
He said that he understood that the IFA leadership would be put under "huge" pressure from Brian Cowen, Enda Kenny and of course Peter Mandelson who last week dared to brand the IFA leadership liars. The organisation, and Irish farmers, should not allow themselves either to be bullied or bribed into supporting a Treaty that was so patently bad for rural Ireland.
 
He singled Mr. Walshe out for particular praise, saying that the IFA President had "shown admirable leadership", and said that he was certain that Mr. Walshe had the "necessary courage to stand up to the Pressure he will be put under":

"Let us be very clear about this. Mandelson's WTO talks are merely the symptom of a bigger problem facing Irish farmers, - the lack of accountability in Brussels. This Treaty enshrines that, weakens Ireland's voice, and exposes us to future deals that could devastate Irish farming.

Under the Common Commercial Policy, Article 188 of the Lisbon Treaty makes the conclusion of international trade agreements such as the WTO Doha round, an exclusive competence of the EU and, after Lisbon, Ireland would be left with no veto over the final deal.

Ireland would lose its Commissioner for five out of every 15 years. For five years at a time, we would have no voice at the table which has the monopoly on proposing new laws for Europe such as the reform of CAP. Although this applies equally to all member states, it is obviously of more concern to a small country like Ireland than, say, a large one like Germany.

Ireland's voice is further weakened by the new voting arrangements introduced by Lisbon. Under the new proposals, Ireland's vote in the Council would be reduced by 50% while Germany's would double and France's would increase by 60%. Think how this might affect Ireland's ability to protect its vital interests in agriculture in negotiations on the future reform of the CAP.

Voting No would strengthen the hand of Irish farmers to demand a better deal for themselves and for Europe and stop Mandelson's sell-out of Irish agriculture.

The Government's claim that a Yes vote would strengthen the hand of Irish farmers in negotiations is totally untrue. This referendum offers farmers and the citizens of Ireland a trump card – why would they just hand it back again by voting yes?

I understand that a few leaders of the IFA will come under immense pressure to support this Treaty. I should know as I came under immense pressure myself.  I have been hugely impressed with Padraig Walshe's leadership in this battle thus far. I know that there are certain politicians in this country who think the IFA will roll over like a puppy dog and play dead a few days before polling, - but having seen Mr. Walsh in action so far, I doubt that this will  be the case."

Mr. Ganley criticised the Yes side for "spinning" comments about the Common Agricultural Policy that he had made in 2005, saying that the referendum would not be won or lost on the basis of inaccurate personalised attacks.
 
"My comments were made in 2005, before the necessary and welcome reforms of then-commissioner Franz Fischler.
 
I come from a farming background in the west of Ireland where small farmers were devastated by poverty and emigration. The CAP has, overall, been of benefit to those people, but like all programmes, it needed reform.
 
I understand well how the reform of the CAP was supposed to follow market rather than subsidy-led solutions. However, it has failed consumers and farmers alike and swamped Irish farmers in red-tape.
 
Some in the processing sector have used farmers' weakness as an opportunity to engage in anti-competitive practices leading to farmers being paid the same farm-gate prices for products such as beef, lamb and milk as they were 20 years ago while production costs have vastly increased. Farmers are now working much harder for much less money – on average, their incomes are between 20% to 45% of the average industrial wage depending on the sector."
 
Mr. Ganley concluded by saying that he was unsurprised by the recent increase in activity by the "Yes" campaign:
 
"I note that they have gotten out of the blocks at last. Now that they have, they will find on the ground what we have been finding for months, - people will not swallow bland slogans about EU membership this time. They know this Treaty is different, they are tired of being patronised, and they are ready to give the political establishment in Brussels a firm message that they need to go back to the drawing board and think again.

Mr. Ganley said "a No vote is not a vote against Brian Cowen, FF or FG. A No vote will be a mandate for Brian Cowen to go back to Brussels as our new leader and negoitate a better deal for Ireland. They will definitely give it to him."

[Sub-X]

Dublin launches EU treaty 'yes' campaign
http://euobserver.com/9/26124/?rk=1
13.05.2008

The Irish government has launched its campaign in favour of the EU treaty with the new prime minister, Brian Cowen, calling for a "yes" vote in next month's referendum.

"It would be a very backward step to resign from the strategic political positioning we have established in 35 years of (EU) membership," Mr Cowen said on Monday (12 May). "It would have very serious implications."

The government push comes as the most recent poll, by the Sunday Business Post, put the "yes" camp in front with 38 percent, the "no" side on 28 percent and "don't knows" at 34 percent.

This represents a better showing for the "yes" side than two weeks ago, when a poll by the same newspaper put the yes and "no" vote at 35 and 31 percent, respectively. The undecided remained static.

"To tackle modern forces such as globalisation, climate change and cross-border crime, countries cannot stand alone; and for us this means that we need an EU which has the structures, policies and procedures capable of having an impact," said Mr Cowen.

The prime minister, who only came into office earlier this month, hit out at the "no" side for what he said was its attempts to "distort" the contents of the treaty.

The referendum, now formally confirmed for 12 June, is set to be the first major challenge of his leadership.

The Referendum Commission, tasked with informing citizens about the EU treaty, has a budget of €5 million, while the slogan of Fianna Fail, the main governing party, is "Good for Ireland, Good for Europe."

Ireland is the only EU member state to have a referendum on the new treaty and the government is coming under enormous pressure to secure a "yes" vote, with all 27 countries needed to ratify the document for it to come into force.

Analysts suggest that much will depend on voter turnout among the 3-million-strong electorate. A low turn-out could result in a "no" vote, they say, while a higher turnout is set to work more in favour of the "yes" camp.

[Sub-X]

EU Citizens outside the Irish State can vote No online against the Lisbon Treaty
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/211
May 12th, 2008

The Republic of Ireland is the only EU Member-State holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. EU citizens denied a vote in their own state can now register a No Vote online at www.irish-friends-vote-no-for-me.org

On 13 December 2007, the heads of EU States and governments signed the "Lisbon Treaty" which they expect to take effect on 1 January 2009. This Treaty will govern the future workings of the European Union and, like the European Constitution refused by French and Dutch voters in 2005, it will set the course of a neo-liberal, free-market Europe in exactly the same way. The social needs of European citizens are not taken into account. Instead of respecting the wishes of Europeans for a democratic, social, peaceful and ecological Europe, this treaty sets the neoliberal EU agenda in stone.

To succeed in this coup d'état, all demands for referendums have been ignored and governments are misleading their peoples about the content.

We ask the Irish to vote against this EU Treaty!

We place our hopes in the Irish, and in our fellow Europeans to join in this effort.

We say YES to Europe, but we want a new beginning. We want a peaceful, social, ecological and democratic Europe and we say NO to militarization of the EU, to its neoliberal orientation and the downgrading of democratic freedoms.

We aspire to a European Union of the people, by the people, for the people, but that can only become possible when all citizens of the EU are given the right to decide for themselves whether the Lisbon Treaty should be the basis of their future governments. We say NO and we ask you to

Please sign the petition here!

[Sub-X]

Irish farmers, Peter Mandelson & the Lisbon Treaty
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/215
13/05/2008

TV studio discussion and audience response from RTE’s 'Questions & Answers' – May 13th. (Click on Question 2. Debate gets particularly interesting ca. 10 mins 25 secs)

'Questions & Answers'

[Sub-X]

Health Services and the Lisbon Treaty
http://www.caeuc.org/index.php?q=node/216
By Brendan Young. CAEUC. May 2008.

Lisbon would make it easier for the European Commission to make trade agreements, like the current WTO agreements, that would allow transnational service companies to compete to deliver our health service. The treaty would remove the veto on international trade agreements in health, education and social services. Lisbon provides the means for a privatisation triple lock of government policy, EU policy, and international agreements in the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). We can change the government, but we can't change EU treaties or GATS agreements once they are in place.

Trade in Services

Trade in services means removing regulations so that private-for-profit transnationals can bid to run them, for a profit. Ten years ago the veto on trade in agriculture was given away in the Treaty of Amsterdam: no individual government can now veto a deal in that area – as Irish farmers would like our government to do with Mandelson's current proposals.

Ireland can only block the current WTO agreement if health, education or social services are included in the agreement – the details of which our government refuses to publish; or along with a group of other governments as part of a 'blocking minority'. Under Art.188c of Lisbon, all vetos would go. What's happening with agriculture now could happen with health, education or social services in a few year's time.

This government's policies locked into EU and international agreements

The removal of the veto on trade in health, education and social services would make it easier for the current government to entrench their privatisation policies into international agreements in the GATS. This would not only strengthen their hand now. It would also enable them to secretly support an EU-GATS agreement to liberalise trade in health, education or social services and in the future blame the EU for privatisation of services – like the recent cases of the ambulances and the water charges for schools.

Likewise it would make it much more difficult for a future Irish government to reverse this government's policies and repair the damage. We have the possibility to change the current health minister or the current government. We cannot get back the powers given away in EU treaties, like Lisbon.

What IBEC has to say about healthcare under Lisbon:

"Through our membership of the EU many markets have been subject to liberalisation and through this process new business opportunities have been created for Irish companies. The Lisbon Reform Treaty creates the legal basis for the liberalisation of services of general economic interest (Art. 106). A yes vote for the Lisbon Treaty creates the potential for increased opportunities for Irish business particularly in areas subject to increasing liberalisation such as Health, Education, Transport, Energy and the Environment."
Full text of IBEC submission.
We think IBEC is right in its opinion of Lisbon: it would create opportunities for profiteering from trade in public services, including health. (The Art.106 they cite is a misprint; the Article in question is Art.16 TEC/TFEU)

Powers to say how public services should run

Lisbon would also amend Article 16 of the Treaty of Rome (TEC/TFEU)to give the EU power to set down the 'economic and financial conditions' under which public services, including health services, should be run. These conditions would have to fit into the overall economic framework of the EU treaties. Lisbon would place 'price stability' as central to the way the EU economies should be run (Art 2 TEU).

The European Central Bank has already said that public spending and the minimum wage must be kept down so as not to effect price stability (price rises). And Art 115 of Lisbon allows the EU to set out guidelines for how governments should manage their budgets. So Lisbon would enable the EU to say that spending on public services should be restricted so as not to cause a budget deficit – whatever the impact on the services.

Services as 'economic activities' – cherry-picked for a profit

Also central to the EU treaties is competition in the market for goods and services. The European Court of Justice has already ruled that many activities in the delivery of services can be regarded as 'economic activities' to which the competition rules of the EU apply. This includes the delivery of health services. Art 16 of Lisbon says that public services must be provided within the framework of the EU treaties.

So Lisbon would open the door to more publicly-provided services having to compete with the cherry-picking for-profit private contractors. This would first happen within the EU internal market; and then on the international market through agreements in the GATS.

Protection from competition?

It is claimed that the Charter of Fundamental Rights and / or Art.152 TFEU would protect health services and guarantee high quality accessible services. In our view these provisions would not alter the existing inequality in the Irish health care system, nor block privatisation. The ECJ has already ruled (Watts ruling, 2006) that the powers of governments to define health policies does not rule out other provisions in the Treaties being applied, in particular the 'freedom to provide services' in Art.49 TFEU.
It was on Art.49 that the ECJ ruled that Swedish trade unions could not take action to force a company from another EU country to pay more than the minimum wage – the infamous Laval ruling. Neither the Charter nor Lisbon would change the principle that private providers can compete for a contract to provide a service – including healthcare.

Trade in private healthcare is already taking place in Ireland. Beacon Medical, which owns the Beacon hospital in Sandyford, was owned by Triad – an American company which has been bought by yet another transnational. Beacon has contracts for the co-located private hospitals at Beaumont, Cork and Limerick.

Bringing more private hospitals into the Irish system dovetails with government policy of closing regional and smaller hospitals. And who knows what might happen with these private hospitals in the future as health insurance prices rise, companies are bought and sold, profitable services are expanded or expensive ones run down – all depending on how profitable the hospitals are.

Copperfasten privatisation process

Lisbon would copperfasten this privatisation process by placing restrictions on how public services are funded; by enshrining the right of private contractors to bid for public services into EU treaties – rather than national law which can be changed; and by removing the veto on international trade agreements in these services – which would give private-for-profit health corporations the legal backing of international agreements in the GATS. We can change this government and reverse its policy. We can't change EU treaties or GATS agreements.

[Sub-X]

Hospital protestors urge No to Lisbon
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0513/eulisbon.html?rss
13 May 2008

Campaigners for the retention of hospital services in the west are seeking to link their protest to the debate on the Lisbon Treaty referendum.

Last night in Roscommon, almost 600 people attended a protest meeting over the proposed downgrading of the county hospital there.

A motion calling for opposition to the treaty was passed by a clear majority.

AdvertisementToday a campaign is being launched to merge the support of other community hospital action committees in a united bid to oppose the treaty on 12 June.

The downgrading of Roscommon County Hospital has historically been a hot political issue. Health Service Executive proposals to recommend the closure of inpatient surgical beds and the transfer of services to Ballinasloe have been bitterly opposed.

Consultants in Roscommon have warned the move is a prelude to the downgrading and eventual closure of the hospital.

Last night's meeting proposed a No vote to the treaty and the organisers are now seeking the support of 23 other hospital protest groups around the country in an anti-Lisbon stance - a further desperate bid, they say, to stop an unfair downgrading of local facilities.

A member of the Roscommon Hospital Action Committee told RTÉ Radio's Morning Ireland that the committee is a non-political organisation, but it has been forced to go political to get the Government's attention.

[Sub-X]

Irish PM takes hard line on EU treaty rebels
http://euobserver.com/9/26139/?rk=1
15.05.2008

Irish prime minister Brian Cowen has warned that he will not tolerate opponents to the EU treaty from within his own party Fianna Fail, raising the prospect of expulsion for any rebels.

"We are absolutely committed to the ratification of this treaty. It is fundamental to how we think, what our philosophy is," said Mr Cowen on Wednesday (14 May), according to the Irish Independent.

"And if there were to be anyone - and I don't know of anybody, but take it hypothetically - who had a conscientious problem, they would have to consider that outside the context of my parliamentary party."

His words come amid a general heating up of the debate as the referendum campaign was officially launched earlier on this week.

On the same day, the "no" organisation Cóir said it had put up a over 5,000 posters around the country containing messages such as "People died for your freedom, don't throw it away. Vote no" and "The new EU won't see you, won't hear you, won't speak for you."

Cóir's website says the organisation is working to "protect Irish sovereignty and the constitutional rights of every Irish person."

Meanwhile, speaking to an American Chamber of Commerce audience in Brussels on Tuesday, Irish finance minister Brian Lenihan sought to lay to rest arguments from treaty opponents that the new EU charter would undermine Ireland's corporate tax regime, which the country jealously defends.

"Ireland's veto over any EU proposals in the taxation area remains. I do not think it is possible to be more unequivocal than this," said Mr Lenihan.

He also said he thought that a "very significant number of member states" opposed the idea of creating a common corporate tax base, something currently being looked into by EU tax commissioner Laszlo Kovacs.

Ireland's EU treaty referendum will take place on 12 June, it is the only country of the 27 member states to hold a public poll resulting in huge public interest and scrutiny across Europe ahead of the vote.

[Sub-X]

EU criticised for DNA database plan
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0515/eudna.html
15 May 2008

The European Union has rushed through rules giving police access to DNA databases across the bloc without regard for proper safeguards, a data protection watchdog said today.

Tourists could find themselves suspects in a cross-border criminal investigation merely for having had a drink at a motorway service station, European Data Protection Supervisor Peter Hustinx said.

'In some cases it will be a nightmare not only for citizens but also law enforcement authorities... What might have been done responsibly has not been done well,' Mr Hustinx told a news conference presenting his annual report.

Under rules agreed by interior ministers last June, national police trying to identify a suspect from hair, sperm or fingernails will be able to check all DNA data gathered for criminal investigation in other member states.

EU states set themselves a three-year deadline to make their DNA database records available and vowed to work on common EU safeguards on data protection in police matters.

However Mr Hustinx said it was already clear the safeguards would be largely based on an existing model which he said did not address differences in various EU national legislations, and which was too complex to function efficiently.

He criticised Germany, which held the rotating EU presidency at the time, for chairing negotiations that meant the rules were adopted in barely four months.

'I'm afraid we can't do much to repair the problem ... I found it regrettable that the Germany Presidency used the dynamics of the presidency to get something adopted that should not have been adopted in this way,' he said.

'The safeguards are not clear, harmonised or even available,' he said.

Mr Hustinx sketched the scenario of a robbery at an autobahn service station and an innocent tourist subsequently getting mixed up in a cross-border investigation merely for having earlier had a drink there and so left DNA traces on a glass.

'This is a relevant factor for anyone travelling around Europe,' he warned.

Asked to comment on Mr Hustinx's criticism, a German official said the data protection safeguards were based on a model used by seven countries - Germany, Austria, the Benelux countries, France and Spain - in a pilot of the DNA-sharing scheme, and that they were regarded as adequate.

Privacy and data protection concerns have a high profile in the EU. Rights groups have raised concerns over an EU agreement in April to give US authorities limited access to police databases in a bid to end a visa row with Washington.

Separately, an EU plan to fingerprint all foreigners visiting the EU sparked criticism this year that the bloc was building up huge databases of personal information without a clear strategy for safeguards.

[Sub-X]

EU Diplomatic Service planned after Irish vote.
http://www.voteno.ie/html/press.htm#DiplomaticService
15.05.2008

The EU is planning to set up a diplomatic service with missions in 125 countries after the Irish vote on the Lisbon Treaty. An EU Summit in Brussels, which will be held a week after the Irish referendum, will provide more details on the plans.

The new diplomatic service will be known as the European External Action Service and will be controlled by the new EU Foreign Affairs Minister.

The Lisbon Treaty is not very specific on the details of how the new diplomatic service will be established but work is already going on behind the scenes.

Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the EU parliament said recently that there is work going on but not much has been publicly stated.

The main reason for the secrecy is that the EU Commission is trying to keep the issue out of the spotlight because they fear that it would be seen as further evidence of their desire to create an EU super-state.

They hope that once the Irish vote for Lisbon, they can get a freer hand to drive through their agenda.

An EU diplomatic service would be a further step on the road to creating the military and political superpower that the elite want. It would be used to enforce a common foreign policy that is driven by great power-politics.

The issue of the Israel-Palestine conflict shows what is at stake. The EU Commission has forced through a policy whereby the Palestinian people are punished for electing the Hamas government. By contrast it grants a favourable trading status to Israel even though it is guilty of war crimes in Lebanon and Palestine.

The new EU diplomatic service would be used to push this line throughout the world and Ireland would be even more tied into its imperialist mindset.

[Sub-X]

Forum on Europe booklet confirms WTO veto abolished
http://www.libertas.org/content/view/275/1/
15 May 2008

The Government's claim that Ireland retains its right to veto future world trade deals under Lisbon is completely blown out of the water by the Forum on Europe's official guide to the Treaty, Libertas Executive Director Naoise Nunn said today.

Mr. Nunn was speaking after this morning's session of the Forum, which heard from Ruairi Quinn TD and Joe Higgins.

Mr. Nunn said that page 64 of the forum booklet made very clear that the veto was abolished, listing the "negotiation and conclusion of agreements with one or more third countries or international organisations in the field of commercial policy" as moving from unanimity to Qualified majority voting.

Mr. Nunn said that while a veto is retained in a number of small areas under article 188c, future WTO deals would not be amongst them.

Mr. Nunn said that it was "barely conceivable" that the Irish Government had failed so badly in its negotiation of the Treaty:

"This issue has only come to light fairly recently, - buried as it is in the text of the Treaty, and going unmentioned in any literature or debate on the Treaty, and that is because very few people would have believed it to be true.

For several weeks, we have scoured the Treaty to find Ireland's veto on the WTO talks, and it simply isn't there, - it has been abolished. This means that Ireland, which does have a special interest in the area of WTO talks and in agriculture particularly, will lose its ability to block major deals that are harmful to us.

This fact is confirmed by the Forum on Europe's own booklet on page 64.

The consequences of this veto being abolished are of the utmost importance to Ireland. We are left exposed, and without recourse in the event of a major unfriendly policy initative.

This mess is as a result of the spectacular failure by the Government to negotiate Lisbon correctly. There are holes and back doors in this document everywhere you look.

Why would we be surprised though, when we have a Taoiseach trying to sell us a document he hasn't even read? A document that we won't give to the people to read, but claims that he understands.

Once again, we see this referendum coming down to the issue of trust. On the WTO veto, there has now been a very clear breach of trust between the Government, and the farmers whose votes they seek.

Even before the issue of the WTO veto arose, this was a bad deal for Ireland, and a bad deal for Europe. It is now even more so."

[Sub-X]

The Referendum Commission is failing to carry out it’s statutory duty!
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=317
The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre
May 2008

The Referendum Commission is failing to carry out it’s statutory duty of explaining to citizens what the Constitutional amendment is about which we shall be voting on in June.

Questions for the Referendum Commission regarding deficiencies in it’s publicity material to date.

Referendum Commission Chairman Mr. Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill gets his facts wrong on the Laval/Vaxholm judgement of the EU Court of Justice.

The  1998 Referendum Act imposes on the Referendum Commission the statutory obligation “to prepare a statement or statements containing a general explanation of the subject matter of the proposal  (i.e.the proposal to amend the Constitution) and of the text thereof in the relevant Bill and any other information relating to those matters that the Commission considers appropriate.”

In view of this clear injunction from the Oireachtas it is surprising that neither the Referendum Commission’s web-site nor the Handbook which it it is sending to voters gives the text of the proposal to amend the Irish Constitution, or even a summary of it.

The Commission’s Handbook to Voters is significantly misleading in that it states, on Page 2:”You are being asked to decide whether or not to change the Constitution of Ireland to allow Ireland to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon.”   But that is only part of the decision Irish voters are being asked to make regarding the proposed Constitutional Amendment.

The first sentence of the Constitutional Amendment, which is set out in the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008, makes clear that the Amendment’s purpose is to enable the State to ratify the Treaty of Lisbon AND to be “a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty.”

However, the  Referendum Commission  makes no reference whatever  to the latter part of this sentence. Nor does it make any reference to the important sentence following, which would give the “laws, acts and measures” of the post-Lisbon European Union constitutional  supremacy over the Irish Constitution and laws.

The following are the first two subsections  - the centrally important ones  - of the  English text of the Constitutional Amendment which is set out in the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2008,  which voters will be voting on on 12 June and which is “the subject matter of the proposal and text thereof in the relevant Bill” that it is the statutory duty of the Referendum Commission to explain to citizens:

“10: The State may ratify the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community,  signed at Lisbon on the 13th day of December 2007, and  may be a member of the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty.  (emphasis added)

11:   No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union referred to in subsection 10 of this section, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred  to in this section, from having the force of law in the State.”

By omitting any reference in either its web-site or its Voters’ Handbook to “the European Union established by virtue of that Treaty”, viz. the Lisbon Treaty, the Referendum Commission is failing in its statutory duty of explaining  to the Irish people the profound constitutional difference between the European Union which would be established by the Treaty of Lisbon and  the European Union which we are currently members of and which was established by the 1993 Maastricht Treaty.

The Referendum Commission is thus failing in its obligation to tell voters that the European Union which would  be established by Lisbon - unlike the present EU -  would have the constitutional form of a supranational Federation  in which Ireland and the other EU Member States would have the constitutional status of regional or provincial states, and of which we would all be made real citizens for the first time, rather than our being just notional or honorary EU “citizens” as at present.

One can only be a citizen of a State and all States must have citizens. As real citizens of the constitutionally new European Union to be established by the Lisbon Treaty -  and in contrast to the current EU which was establshed by the 1993 Maastricht Treaty - we would owe the post-Lisbon EU the normal citizens’ duty of obedience to its laws and loyalty to its authority over and above our obedience and loyalty to the Irish State and the Irish Constitution and laws.

We would still retain our national Irish citizenship in the post-Lisbon European Union,  but our new dual citizenship post-Lisbon would not be citizenship of two different States, but rather of the federal and regional/provincial levels of one state, as is normal in such classical Federations as the USA, Federal Germany, Switzerland and Canada.

The Irish Constitution would remain in being  after Lisbon - just as the various states of the Federal USA still retain their constitutions -  but it would be subordinate to the EU Constitution in any case of conflict between the two.  The rights and duties attaching to our  new  EU citizenship would also be subordinate  to the rights and duties attaching to our national citizenship in any case of conflict, because of the primacy of EU law over national law in the post-Lisbon  Union,  as indicated in the second sentence of the proposed Constitutional Amendment quoted above.

These are major constitutional changes by any standard -  for the EU, for its Member States and for Irish citizens. Yet there is not a hint of them in the publicity material of the Referendum Commission so far.

The present EU is not a State and does not have legal personality such that it can have citizens as members. The “European Union established by virtue of the Lisbon Treaty”, which is referred to in the first and most important sentence of the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill,  would be quite different in this and other respects.

One can scarcely imagine a more significant constitutional change for Irish citizens than that they should be made real citizens of a real European Union which would  have  the constitutional form of a Federation for the first time by virtue of the Lisbon Treaty.

Lisbon would give the constitutionally new European Union that it would establish  a Federal Constitution indirectly, just as the 2005 EU Constitution which the French and Dutch rejected  sought to do that directly. The difference is that the word “Constitution” has been abandoned  and the whole process is wrapped in deception and misrepresentation, with citizens in every EU country except Ireland being denied a direct say in the constitutional revolution which the  Lisbon Treaty proposes.

One can imagine that the Government and Yes-side proponents would like to keep these major constitutional changes which would be made by the Lisbon Treaty  from the attention  of Irish voters. But for the Referendum Commission to do so in its initial publicity material  is truly alarming.

It may be that the Commission has got wrong or one-sided legal advice.  It may be that it intends to remedy  this fundamental deficiency in later statements that it issues.   Certainly the constitutional aspects of the Treaty of Lisbon which it is choosing to ignore to date have been brought to its attention in private communications  from this organisation.

Questions the media and citizens should put to the Referendum Commission

We therefore urge the Irish media to ask the Referendum Commission why the text of the Constitutional  Amendment set out in the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill  - which it is its statutory obligation to explain - is not even carried on the Commission’s web-site, although  the full text of the Lisbon Treaty is available there, and  why the Commission in its publicity material  to date is concentrating entirely on the first clause of the first sentence of the proposed Constitutional Amendment and is totally ignoring the important second clause as well as the second sentence.

We urge the Irish media to ask Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill and  his Referendum Commission colleagues why they  are not explaining to Irish voters what is the difference  between the European  Union which would be established  by the Treaty of Lisbon and the current European Union  which was established by the Treaty of Maastricht - for a grasp of that difference is central to appreciating  the significance of the Constitutional Amendment the Irish people will be voting on in four weeks time.

We urge the media to ask the Referendum Commission what is the difference between citizenship of the European Union “complementing” one’s national citizenship  as under the present Treaties(Art.17 TEC) and being made “additional to” national citizenship by the Lisbon Treaty’s amendment to the Treaty on European Union (Art.9 amended TEU)?  Why does the Commission  makes no reference to EU citizenship or its implications in its publicity material to date?

The Referendum Commission cannot do a proper job of explaining the Treaty of Lisbon to voters unless it addresses the character of the constitutionally transformed European Union which the Lisbon Treaty would bring into being.

There is still time for the Commission  to fulfil its statutory obligation and use fruitfully the ¤5 million of public money it has been allocated. The Irish media  and all concerned citizens should call on it do that.

The members of the Referendum Commission are Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill(Chairman), Ms Emily O’ Reilly(Ombudsman), Mr John Purcell(Comptroller and Auditor-General), Mr Kieran Coughlan(Clerk of the Dail) and Ms Deirdre Lane(Clerk of the Seanad).

______

Misleading statements on the mode of appointments of European Commissioners in the Referendum Commission’s publicity material.

The  Referendum  Commission’s  web-site and  Voters’ Handbook are misleading in referring to EU Member States as being able to “nominate” members of the European Commission in the post-Lisbon European Union - see Page 5 of the Handbook. Lisbon  provides that Ireland’s present right to “propose”  a national Commissioner, and  in effect to have that proposal accepted by the other Member States if we are to accept their proposals (Art. 214, current TEC), would be replaced by a right to make “suggestions”  regarding a name, but with no guarantee that a particular suggestion would be accepted by the new President of the Commission, who would in future decide (Art.17.7 TEU).

The Commission’s Handbook to Voters states on page 5 that “At present, each Member State nominates  one member of the Commission”  and then goes on to say: “The right to nominate a Commissioner will rotate among the Member States on an equal basis.”  The use of the word “nominate”  to describe the  mode of appointment of  European Commissioners  pre-Lisbon and post-Lisbon is misleading,  for the Treaty amendment which  Lisbon proposes would remove from each  Member State  the right to decide, which they have at present, and replace it by a right to make “suggestions” only, which is a rather different thing.

This misleading nature of the phrase “right to nominate” -  which means a right to propose and to decide -  in relation to the appointment of EU Commissioners pre-Lisbon and post-Lisbon  was brought privately to the Referendum Commission’s attention two weeks ago when it first appeared on the Commission’s web-site.  It is hard to understand why the same glossing over of the significant change the Lisbon Treaty would make in the mode of appointment of EU Commissioners should now be repeated in the Commission’s Voters’ Handbook.

The Referendum Commission is not telling Irish voters the full truth in this matter.

_______

Mr. Justice O’Neill gets his facts wrong on the Laval/Vaxholm judgement of the EU Court of Justice.

We are informed that on yesterday’s RTE1’s lunchtime news at 1 p.m. Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O’Neill stated that the Laval/Vaxholm judgement of the EU Court of Justice was given before the Lisbon Treaty was signed and that he implied that it was not relevant to the Treaty.  In fact the Laval judgement was given on 18 December last, five days after the Lisbon Treaty was signed, so that it  could not have been taken into account or responded to by the States signing the Treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty copperfastens the case-law of  the EU Court of Justice. The Laval judgement could have been set aside by a Protocol to the Treaty if the Member State Governments had been aware of it and wished to do that, but that was impossible in view  of when the judgement was given.  That is why the only way the Laval judgement can now be set aside is by voters rejecting  the Lisbon Treaty and incorporating a Protocol in a later Treaty which would protect EU Member States, their Governments and  Trade Union movements from the likely adverse  effects of the Laval judgement on workers’ pay and condution.

Contrary to Mr Justice O’ Neill’s comments of yesterday therefore, the Laval/Vaxholm judgement is very relevant to the Lisbon Treaty and citizens’ attitudes to it.

[Sub-X]

Is it a Constitution or a Treaty?
http://www.lisbonvote.com/

In 2005 the people of France and the Netherlands voted against the EU Constitution.  It was a serious blow to the European politicians and bureaucrats who had devised  and promoted the new Constitution. It also taught them a valuable lesson: that while voters were prepared to support an economic union, they balked at the very obvious creation of a United States of Europe, complete with a President,an anthem and a flag.

So the politicians and high-ranking civil servants went back to the drawing board and came up with the Treaty of Lisbon. According to themselves it retained all of the important features of the EU Constitution, but it could now be simply passed off as a Treaty. That clever move meant that the French, the Dutch, the English and all the other voters across the EU except the Irish were no longer entitled to vote on it.

So is it a Constitution or a Treaty?

Here's what Bertie Ahern said:

"Thankfully they haven't changed the substance (of the Constitution);90 per cent of it is still there."
An Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, Irish Independent, 24 June 2007

And Minister Dermot Ahern agreed.

"The substance of what was agreed in 2004 has been retained. What is gone is the term 'constitution' ".
Dermot Ahern, Irish Foreign Minister, Daily Mail Ireland, 25 June 2007

And they're telling the truth this time! Here's how the Treaty retained the most important facets of the EU Constitution.

• The Treaty of Lisbon would establish a new European Union with a new legal and constitutional form - just as the EU Constitution intended to.
• It does not simply reform what went before - it creates, for the first time, a European Federation.
• The Lisbon Treaty would bring about this constitutional  revolution by amending the two existing European Treaties, the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC). The former would retain its name, while the latter would be renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
• These two amended Treaties would then become the de facto Constitution of the new European Union.
• Like the EU Constitution, the Lisbon Treaty makes EU law superior to the Constitutions and laws of the member states.
• Member States would retain their national constitutions, but these would be subordinate to the new Union Constitution. The Treaty clearly declares that EU law is superior to Irish law and the Irish Constitution in Declaration 17 concerning Primacy.
• This has not been stated in a European Treaty before.
• The Declaration is reinforced in the 28th Amendment to the Constitution Bill published by the Irish government, which is what people will be voting on in June.
• This Constitutional Amendment would permit Ireland to join the new European Union which Lisbon would set up. And it then states:
  
  
  
• "No provision of this Constitution invalidates laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the State that are necessitated by membership of the European Union, or prevents laws enacted, acts done or measures adopted by the said European Union or by institutions thereof, or by bodies competent under the treaties referred to in this section, from having the force of law in the State."
• The Treaty would empower the new European Union to act as a State, just as the EU Constitution intended

.

• To understand the change that would be introduced by the Lisbon Treaty one needs to appreciate that what we call the European Union today is not a State. It is not even a legal or corporate entity in its own right, for it does not have legal personality.  The name "European Union" at present is the descriptive legal term for the totality of relations between its 27 Member States and their peoples.
• The Lisbon Treaty would change this situation fundamentally by creating a constitutionally and legally quite new EU, while retaining the same name, the "European Union".   Unlike the present European Union, this constitutionally new EU would be separate from and superior to its Member States, just as the USA is separate from and superior to Massachussetts or Kansas, or as FederalGermany is to Bavaria or Bremen.
• This new European Union could sign treaties with other States in all areas of its powers and conduct itself as a State in the international community of States. It would speak at the United Nations on agreed foreign policy positions; just as in the days of the Soviet Union the USSR had a UN seat while Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia had UN seats also.  Member States would be obliged to support the Union's foreign and security policy "actively and unreservedly in a spirit of loyalty and solidarity".
• The word "loyalty" clearly demonstrates the constitutional relations involved.
• The new Union would make the majority of laws for its Member States each year. Under the Lisbon Treaty it would get further power to make laws by qualified majority voting in relation to over 30 new policy areas. It would furthermore be given new power to take decisions in relation to as many specific issues. There would be some 68 areas or issues in all  where individual Member States decide matters now and where under Lisbon they would lose their veto or their  right to decide.
• Like the EU Constitution, the Treaty would make us all real citizens of this new European Union.One can only be a citizen of a State, and all States must have citizens.Citizenship of the European Union at present is stated to "complement" national citizenship - in other words it's mostly notional.
• However, the Lisbon Treaty would simultaneously transform the meaning of Union citizenship.  The Treaty would replace the word "complement" in the sentence "Citizenship of the Union shall complement national citizenship",so that the new sentence would read: "Citizenship of the Union shall be additional to national citizenship." This would make us real citizens of a real EU on top of our national citizenship for the first time.
• The rights and duties attaching to this citizenship of the new Union would be superior to those attaching to citizenship of one's own national State in any case of conflict between the two, because of the superiority of EU law over national law and constitutions.As most States recognise that one can only have a single citizenship internationally, it is likely that over time one's EU citizenship would tend to be regarded by other countries as one's primary and internationally definitive citizenship.
• Under the Lisbon Treaty - as with the EU Constitution - the EU has a full legal personality and can enter contractual relationships with other states.
• Lisbon would establish a European Union with full legal personality and a fully independent corporate existence in all Union areas for the first time, so that the post-Lisbon Union can function as a State vis-a-vis  other States and in relation to its own citizens(Art. 47 TEU, cf. Art.281 TEC).
• This means that the EU can make treaties and enter negotiations with other states.
• This new EU would take over as well the "intergovernmental" powers over foreign policy and security, as well as crime, justice and home affairs, which at present are outside the scope of European law, leaving only aspects  of  the Common Foreign, Security and Defence Policy outside the scope of its supranational power(Title 5, Art.24, amended TEU)
• As envisaged by the EU Constitution the Lisbon Treaty would create a Union Parliament for the Union's new citizens:
• The Lisbon Treaty would make Members of the European Parliament, who at present are "representatives of the peoples of the Member States", into "representatives of the Union's citizens" (Art.14(2), amended TEU; cf. current Art.189 TEC).   This illustrates the constitutional shift which the Treaty would make from the present European Union of national States and peoples to the new Federal Union of European citizens.
• As envisaged by the EU Constitution, Lisbon would create a political Government of the new Union:
• The Lisbon Treaty would turn the European Council of Prime Ministers and Presidents  into an "institution" of the new Union (Art.13, amended TEU), so that its acts or its "failing to act" would, like all other Union institutions, be subject to legal review by the EU Court of Justice(Arts.263-265, TFEU)
• Legally speaking, these summit meetings of the European Council would no longer be "intergovernmental" gatherings of Prime Ministers and Presidents outside supranational European structures. As part of the new EU´s institutional framework, the Prime Ministers and Presidents would instead be constitutionally required to "promote the Union's values, advance its objectives, serve its interests" and "ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions" (Art. 13(1), amended TEU).  They would also "define the general political direction and priorities thereof" (Art.15(1),amended TEU).
• As an Institution of the new Union, the European Council of Prime Ministers and Presidents would, for example, be in principle open to direction from the European Court of Justice  to take steps to harmonise company taxes that constituted a "distortion of competition", something which at present requires unanimity, if they were slow or reluctant to do this(Art.113 TFEU), or if they failed to take steps to ensure that the new Union's "own resources" were adequate to meet its objectives(Art.311 TFEU).
• The European Council would thus become in effect the Cabinet Government of the new Federal EU, and its individual members would be primarily obliged to represent the Union to their Member States rather than their Member States to the Union.
• Lisbon would create a new Union political President - something also envisaged by the EU Constitution.
• The Treaty proposes to give the European Council a permanent political President for up to five years - two and a half years renewable once (Art.15(5), amended TEU).
• There is no gathering of Heads of State or Government in any other international context which maintains the same chairman or president for several years, while individual national Prime Ministers and Presidents come and go.
• It is part of the federalist evolution of the Union that the President of the European Council becomes no longer a rotating Head of Government, but a permanent EU official.  If the President plays this role effectively - including setting the agenda for legislation and representing the EU on the international stage - he or she is bound to assume increasing status and importance.
• As in a Constitution, Lisbon would give the new Union self-empowerment powers:
• These are shown by:
• (a) the enlarged scope of the Flexibility Clause (Art.352,TFEU), whereby if  the Treaty does not provide the necessary powers to enable the new Union attain its very wide objectives, the Council may take appropriate measures by unanimity.  The Lisbon Treaty would extend this provision from the area of operation of the common market to all of the new Union's policies directed at attaining its much wider post-Lisbon objectives. The Flexibility Clause has been widely used to extend EU law-making over the years;
• (b)the proposed Simplified Treaty Revision Procedure (Art.48, amended TEU), which would permit the Prime Ministers and Presidents on the European Council unanimously to shift Union decision-taking from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the Treaty on the Functioning of the Union where population size would become the decisive criterion in European  law-making;and
• (c)the several "passerelles" or "ratchet-clauses", which would allow the European Council to switch from unanimity to majority voting in certain specified areas, such as  judicial cooperation in civil matters (Art.81(3)TFEU), in criminal matters(Art.83(1)TFEU), in relation to the EU Public Prosecutor(Art.86(4) TFEU) and the Multiannual financial framework (Art.312(2) TFEU).

The Treaty of Lisbon is an attempt to construct a highly centralised European Federation, from the top down, out of Europe's many nations, peoples and States, without their free consent and knowledge.

It retains 95% of the changes envisaged by the EU Constitution, and the brazen attempt to downplay these changes by re-naming the Constitution a Treaty shows a deep disregard for democracy and a disrespect for the voters of each and every EU member state.

The answer to the question asked at the beginning of this article is this:  Lisbon is a Constitution re-jigged, renamed and remarketed as a Treaty.

With thanks to the National Platform EU Research and Information Centre.

[Sub-X]

Study sees no realistic Plan B in case of Irish EU treaty rejection
http://euobserver.com/9/26151/?rk=1
16.05.2008

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - A rejection by Irish voters of the EU treaty in next month's referendum would be a "catastrophe" for Europe, because there is no credible Plan B, a new study has concluded.

A paper by the Bertelsmann foundation, a German think-tank, believes there are four possible courses of action if charter is rejected in Ireland on 12 June, but none is "especially exhilarating."

It authors suggest that putting the treaty to voters again as happened in 2002 following Ireland's vote against the Nice Treaty the previous year is "not particularly probable" as French and Dutch voters were not asked to vote again on the now ditched EU constitution, which they rejected in 2005.

But amending the treaty is also seen as unrealistic as it is unclear what Ireland would need to change in the treaty to make it appeal to voters a second time round. In addition, this route would have to be approved by all member states, meaning going back to the drawing board and re-opening old institutional and political sores.

Offering Dublin the chance to opt out of certain areas could mean that ratification would not have to be re-commenced in other member states but it is unclear where the country could opt out.

It already does not take part in substantial parts of justice and home affairs areas and sensitive areas for the country, such as tax issues, remain unanimity issues under the Lisbon Treaty.

The paper suggests that the final option is that the EU "abandons its attempts to introduce comprehensive treaty reforms" looking instead to "minimal reforms" which could be introduced by a mini-treaty or by inter-institutional agreements.

"A "No" in the Irish referendum would simply be a catastrophe for Europe," the paper concludes.

Meanwhile Czech foreign minister Karel Schwarzenberg broke the political taboo on talking about a possible treaty rejection by Irish voters, but offered a more prosaic reaction.

He said it would lead to the "usual European crisis."

"Then we will look for some solution. However, at present, no one is ready to consider that the outcome may not be good," he was quoted as saying on Wednesday (14 May) by Czech news agency CTK.

[Sub-X]

Make Sure SIPTU does not join IBEC in calling for a Yes Vote.
http://www.voteno.ie/html/Dont-join-IBEC%20.htm
16.05.2008

The largest union in the country is calling an information meeting on the Lisbon Treaty. Unfortunately, the information will be somewhat one sided . The only advertised guest speaker at the Dublin meeting is Martin Territt, Director of the European Commission in Ireland.

The meeting will take place on Saturday 17th May 2008 at 10.30 am in Liberty Hall. Any SIPTU member can attend.

So far no Irish union has come out in favour of the Lisbon Treaty because of pressure from their own grassroots. Two unions, UNITE and TEEU, are opposed to the treaty, citing the threat it poses to workers rights.

But the hierarchy of the unions are trying to change that. Despite the fact that his own union has not endorsed any position, CPSU General Secretary Blair Horan has spoken in the Yes side and the impression was conveyed that he was speaking for the union.

ICTU leaders appear to have given private indications to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on European Affairs that they favour a Yes position, but are experiencing some local difficulties from the membership.

Most of the SIPTU leaders are tied to the Labour Party and that party has exerted more effort in supporting a right wing government get a Yes vote than any other campaign it has mounted recently.

Kieran Allen, a candidate for the General Secretary of SIPTU, said

"Our union should not join IBEC in calling for a Yes vote. Many of us remember how IBEC did nothing to distance itself from the owners of Irish Ferries when they paid workers below the minimum wage. They favour the Laval judgement and want to attack workers rights".

"IBEC has stated publicly that it is supporting the treaty because it will bring more privatisation. Why should unions side with this neo-liberal agenda?"

"SIPTU should stop backing up government policy and start fighting for its members".

"This should begin with a strong call for a No vote."

"I call on all SIPTU members to make a special effort to attend these information meetings and to leave the leadership in no doubt about the anger that will grow if they call for a Yes vote."

[menace]

Irish prime minister Brian Cowen has warned that he will not tolerate opponents to the EU treaty from within his own party Fianna Fail, raising the prospect of expulsion for any rebels.

"We are absolutely committed to the ratification of this treaty. It is fundamental to how we think, what our philosophy is," said Mr Cowen on Wednesday (14 May), according to the Irish Independent.

"And if there were to be anyone - and I don't know of anybody, but take it hypothetically - who had a conscientious problem, they would have to consider that outside the context of my parliamentary party."

His words come amid a general heating up of the debate as the referendum campaign was officially launched earlier on this week.

On the same day, the "no" organisation Cóir said it had put up a over 5,000 posters around the country containing messages such as "People died for your freedom, don't throw it away. Vote no" and "The new EU won't see you, won't hear you, won't speak for you."

Cóir's website says the organisation is working to "protect Irish sovereignty and the constitutional rights of every Irish person."

Meanwhile, speaking to an American Chamber of Commerce audience in Brussels on Tuesday, Irish finance minister Brian Lenihan sought to lay to rest arguments from treaty opponents that the new EU charter would undermine Ireland's corporate tax regime, which the country jealously defends.

"Ireland's veto over any EU proposals in the taxation area remains. I do not think it is possible to be more unequivocal than this," said Mr Lenihan.

He also said he thought that a "very significant number of member states" opposed the idea of creating a common corporate tax base, something currently being looked into by EU tax commissioner Laszlo Kovacs.

Ireland's EU treaty referendum will take place on 12 June, it is the only country of the 27 member states to hold a public poll resulting in huge public interest and scrutiny across Europe ahead of the vote.

http://euobserver.com/9/26139/?rk=1

[Sub-X]

Beat me to it Menace  ,Cowens being a bit pushy for someone that hasn't even read the Treaty 
Heres another short article from Cóir's own website :

Cowen exhibiting the cowardice of a schoolyard bully
http://www.lisbonvote.com/
16/5/2008

Cóir, formerly the NO to Nice Campaign has accused Brian Cowen of exhibiting the cowardice of a schoolyard bully.

Spokesman Richard Greene stated that it has not gone unnoticed that Cowen's initial public reason for wanting a yes vote was his fear of having to explain to his european bosses that the Irish people had rejected the treaty.

"At the same time he is being exeedingly heavy handed with members of his own party and threatening sanctions against individuals who fail to toe the party line on the treaty," he continued.

He went on to say that this aggressive behaviour towards subordinates in contrast to his demeanor towards EU officials and governments is a classic bully behaviour.

"There's only one sensible way to treat a bully, and that's to standup to them," he concluded.

[oshea.declan]

Beat me to it Menace  ,Cowens being a bit pushy for someone that hasn't even read the Treaty 
Heres another short article from Cóir's own website :

Cowen's initial public reason for wanting a yes vote was his fear of having to explain to his european bosses that the Irish people had rejected the treaty.

Which would Brian prefer ?
1) Having to EXPLAIN to his European Masters why there was a No Vote.
2)Having to Lick the Boots of his European Masters because of a Yes Vote.

[Sub-X]

Which would Brian prefer ?
1) Having to EXPLAIN to his European Masters why there was a No Vote.
2)Having to Lick the Boots of his European Masters because of a Yes Vote.

Brian Cowen has proven as his time as finance minster how little he thinks of the people of this country,stamp duty on first time home buyers and his reluctance to tax the rich,yes it is quiet clear which he would chose,but I would say it would be more lip to cheek action,than lip to boot,globalists love their minions to kiss their arses 

[Sub-X]

Worrying signs as Sinn Fein support falls ahead of Libson poll
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87586
May 16, 2008

Fianna Fail has made gains at the expense of all parties including its coalition partners.

The replacement of Bertie "Liar Liar Pants On Fire" Ahern with Brian "Biffo" Cowen has led to a boost in popular support for Fianna Fail.Sinn Fein the only party who are opposed to the Lisbon Treaty show a worrying decrease in support.Brian Cowen has come out fighting in the last week trying to persuade the electorate to vote in favour of the Treaty after recent polls showed poor levels of support.Is Cowen likely to change the opinions of the electorate by transfering a boost in support into support for Lisbon.It looks dangerously likely.

"The change in leadership has provided a big electoral boost for Fianna Fáil and re-positioned the other parties, according the latest Irish Times /TNS mrbi opinion poll published today. A shift in political attitudes is taking place. The departure of Bertie Ahern, the dominant personality in Irish politics for over a decade, was timely. Despite the long goodbye in the glare of the most favourable publicity, some 70 per cent of voters - 62 per cent of Fianna Fáil supporters among them - believe that he was right to resign. The vast majority of voters also believe that he has further questions to answer about his personal finances.

This is a good opinion poll for the new Taoiseach Brian Cowen in the immediate wake of his election. The level of satisfaction with the Coalition Government has increased by 13 points since last January. Fianna Fáil is witnessing a surge in support - from 34 per cent to 42 per cent. The party only hit this peak in the general elections in 2007 and 2002. Mr Cowen has the highest personal standing of all the party leaders. It is interesting that this figure - 52 per cent - is the same rating which he held as tánaiste. But, it is understandable that some 37 per cent of voters have formed no opinion about his performance only a week in the Taoiseach's office. The important point is that there has been a seamless transition.

The Labour Party will also be pleased with the poll findings. Eamon Gilmore has consolidated his position since he assumed the leadership last autumn. His personal rating has increased to 40 per cent, up 4 points in as many months, placing him ahead of the Fine Gael leader, Enda Kenny, for the first time. There is a significant rise to 15 per cent in support for the party following a credible and consistent performance on major issues, including the resignation of Mr Ahern, in recent months.

Fine Gael will be disappointed with the findings. Their leader, Enda Kenny, sees a drop of 2 points in satisfaction ratings to 39 per cent, his lowest since 2005, possibly caused by a few misjudgments in the handling of recent issues. He made a major mistake in calling for a general election on the day that Mr Ahern set his resignation date. It was as if he delivered the prepared script without taking account of the new circumstances. There is a 5 point drop in the party's support to 26 per cent.

The gains for Fianna Fáil may have come at the expense of the smaller parties, notably their Coalition partners. While the leader of the Green Party John Gormley has a 2 point increase in ratings to 44 per cent, the support for his party has dropped to 4 per cent. Did he have a closer than necessary alignment with the internal affairs of Fianna Fáil in the change in leadership - as captured by his presence on the shoulder of Mr Ahern and Mr Cowen? The Progressive Democrats have dropped in support to 1 per cent and their new leader comes in at the bottom of the pile. There is a drop in support for Sinn Féin also, the only Dáil party to oppose the Lisbon Treaty."

[oshea.declan]

What is unique about this analysis is the author’s contention that the U.S. is being used unwittingly by the European-based financial powers for their own purposes. They know that the U.S. economy is bankrupt, because they have made it so through a quarter century of financial manipulations that have destroyed our manufacturing base and left us horrendously in debt.

Now they have suckered us into the last thing we need—a major Asian land war that threatens to bring Russia and perhaps China into the fray. But that’s all right, because once we have exhausted ourselves and courted nuclear retaliation, Europe, which is uniting under the European Union, will likely be left standing, as will Israel .

This is why Ireland needs to VOTE NO on the Lisbon Treaty. 80% of people in Europe ARE AGAINST IT, The Financial Elite of Europe who are
the Governments Puppet-Masters, are now destroying the U.S.A. and  using it's government and military for it's own ends.
A Yes Vote in the Lisbon Treaty will be a further Kick in the Teeth to the American people as it fit's in with the Global Elites Agenda.
A NO VOTE in the Lisbon Treaty is a Vote of support for our brothers and sisters in America who are struggling to restore the Republic, and defeat the New World Order.

[Sub-X]

Attac rip apart the treaty!
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=320
by Elke Schenk: e.schenk@gmx.eu
ATTAC Germany

“All dangers come from the people”

They only changed the envelope so as to make the treaty easier to swallow and to avoid referendums. The letter in the envelope is still the same. By way of the EU treaty, the EU citizens “will unknowingly agree to a number of decisions that the European politicians do not even wish to present openly to their people“- Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and president of the EU Constitutional Convent.

“They [EU leaders] decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception. Nothing (will be) directly produced by the Prime Ministers because they feel safer with the unreadable thing. They can present it better in order to avoid dangerous referendums. “  - Guiliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister.

“It is questionable, whether the citizens in the respective countries will let themselves be dissuaded about the fact, that a large part of the Constitutional Treaty has been put into the new treaty. The new primary law might be unveiled as a cheat package. “     - Centre for Applied Policy research (CAP) close to the Bertelsmann Foundation on the Lisbon Treaty 2007.

“France was just ahead of all other countries in voting no. It would happen in all countries if they had a referendum. There is a split between people and governments. “ - Nicolas Sarkozy, French state president, in a closed session of the EU Parliament, as reported in the Telegraph, 14 November 2007 ( )

From the EU Constitution to the Lisbon Treaty

In October 2004, after much back and forth debate, the governments of the EU signed a Constitutional Treaty for the European Union in Rome. This treaty should then have been ratified in all EU countries, in a number of them by way of referendum, and then entered into force. The citizens of France and the Netherlands in 2005 thwarted this plan: they voted No. Also in countries where the population were denied the right to a referendum, as in Germany, opinion polls showed that the attitude of the people became increasingly negative as more information filtered through about the contents of the treaty.
The EU governments failed to draw the conclusion that there is no future for Europe without real democratic participation of the citizens, despite the criticisms and failure of the Constitutional treaty. On the contrary, the governments looked for a way to save “the substance of the reforms“and to avoid new referendums.

What is the Lisbon Treaty Process?

In order to circumvent troublesome democratic resistance, the “old wine” of the Constitutional Treaty was simply poured into the new flasks of a treaty that is now called “The Reform Treaty“ or “Treaty of Lisbon“. A more detailed examination shows the text is largely identical with the EU Constitution, which is supposed to be introduced through the back door without dangerous referenda. The Irish people are the only ones allowed to vote. The Lisbon Treaty has been worked out behind closed doors in a government conference. Only three EU Parliamentarians, among them the Bertelsmann lobbyist Elmar Brok, were admitted. After the treaty was signed in December 2007 by the heads of state and government, it must be ratified in all 27 countries to come into force as planned on the 1st of January, 2009. The tight schedule, besides circumventing referendums, serves the purpose of implementing the treaty before people realise that it is almost the same as the rejected EU Constitution. On approx. 150 pages plus additional protocols and declarations, changes are listed to the still valid Nice versions of the EU Treaty and the EC Treaty, the latter being renamed “Treaty on the Functioning of the Union (TFU)“. For smaller changes, only references can be found, new regulations are reprinted as new articles. Since the text is complicated, the European Parliament unanimously wanted to produce a consolidated and readable version. The EU Commission responded by overruling the EP and deciding that no EU Institution may produce a consolidated version until after the treaty is ratified in all member states. The message is clearly: Sign! – read afterwards. Third parties have produced a consolidated version however (see bottom of page).

Why does the Lisbon Treaty matter?

Already 70-80% of national legislation is based on EU directives. National parliaments to a large extent are simply the executors of EU legislation. This marginalisation of national legislation would increase with the new treaty.

The Lisbon Treaty would have precedence over the Constitutions of member states, even though it contradicts with several of them; regulations dealing with sovereignty, defence and the economy of the Irish Constitution are incompatible with the Lisbon Treaty.

The course has been set for a centralised EU state, which is claiming global power.

Public services will be put under more pressure for privatisation.


The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: more promises than it can give…

Even critics of the Lisbon Treaty point to the Charter of Fundamental Rights as an essential contribution to a democratic EU. The Charter is now no longer part of the treaty text, however, it is being declared legally binding by a reference. The governments of Great Britain, Poland, and Ireland only agreed to the treaty under the condition of being given a waver concerning the legal status of the Charter in their countries. Even though the fundamental rights should be individually enforceable, it is unclear how this could be put into practice. The Charter includes essential human and citizen’s rights, which are now fortunately the legal standard in many European countries. However, at the end of the Charter the exercise of rights recognised in the Charter is subject to “the conditions and the limits defined“by the other treaties of the EU. This shows a tendency to reverse the relationship between Basic Rights and legislation which is derived from them. (Charter, Art. 52). Moreover, in many parts the Fundamental Rights are more weakly formulated than the General Declaration of Human Rights in the UN. Social rights, insofar as they are included at all, de facto stand under the proviso of the rights of free enterprise and competition, as does the whole Charter; a clear social obligation for private property is missing.


Improvements for the EU Parliament – more transparency for the citizens…

Many policy matters, on which the Council of Ministers used to decide alone behind closed doors, now fall under the participatory legislative procedure, which means that the approval of the EU Parliament (EP) is needed and in that way also more public attention is drawn towards upcoming decisions. For example, from now on the EP would be able to participate in decision-making in the areas of domestic and regulatory policy, or in the area of World Trade Agreements (WTO). When voting on directives, the Council is supposed to meet in public which means our ministers will no longer be able to hide their responsibility as easily.
…but traps in the small print and no direct democracy

The EU Parliament is still denied the right to propose legislative initiatives and may only vote on submissions from the EU Commission. Furthermore, even in the co-decision procedure, the executive (Council of Ministers and EU-Commission) is dominant. In significant areas the EU Parliament continues to be excluded, for instance in the control of the border security agency Frontex, the Defence Agency (EDA) or the Council Committee on Internal Security, true separation of powers still do not exist at the EU level. The extension of the possibility for “enhanced co-operation” of at least nine countries, in cases where the majority is not complying, further reduces participation rights of the EP, which had seemed to be assured (EU Treaty, Art. 10). The enhanced cooperation still needs to be affirmed by the EP, however. The Citizens’ Petition is non-binding for the Commission and a petition can only be filed based on the new treaty. That means that petitions against military missions or against the effects of neo-liberalism would have no legal basis and therefore be rejected. The relationship to the subject is revealed to be feudalistic: democracy is when citizens “receive equal attention from bodies, institutions and other agencies of the Union“(EU Treaty, Art.8 ).


More influence for the national parliaments…

The national parliaments may only object to directives proposed by the EU Commission if they think that Brussels is assuming competences (and thereby violates the so called principle of subsidiarity). If, within 8 weeks, the majority of all national parliaments (with 2 votes per member state) establish such a violation, the Council and EP are required to assess the proposal under this aspect and may reject it.
…or rather EU dominance over national sovereignty

It may be questioned whether in practice this means a strengthening of national parliaments or just a placebo for the national MPs who feel increasingly obsolete. Some regulations give priority to the EU level - a clear reversal of the subsidiarity principle. For example, in all areas under shared competence of the Union and member states, the member states may only become active insofar and to the extent to which the Union is not exercising its competence. Even in areas which remain formally within the competence of the member states, the EU still has the right to intervene into national sovereign legislation by way of “actions to support, co-ordinate or supplement the actions of the Member States“ (Treaty on the Functioning of the Union, Art. 2 a – 2 e).
Improved capacity for action of the EU - for the benefit of big States and big business
Majority decisions in the Council of Ministers are to become the rule. From 2014, the double majority would be introduced (55% of the “weighted” votes of the member states plus 65% of the population). That means that Germany’s share of votes would double, France and Great Britain would gain 50%, and 40% in voting power respectively; small States such as Ireland would lose influence on decisions made in Brussels. The EU Commission would be reduced to 18 members. Instead of the bi-annual rotation of presidencies, the European Council will have a president with a 2½ year term. These changes meet demands by neo-liberal think-tanks and business lobby groups. They want the EU to be managed in an output-oriented way like a business company. For them discussion and participation is a waste of time.


EU sets the course for global power aspirations…

The Common Foreign and Security Policy falls into the sole competence of the EU. A new office for the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy will be established. For the first time, “the Union’s strategic interests“are mentioned in a treaty (EU Treaty, Art 13). The EU Council gives itself permission for world-wide interventions “to safeguard its values, fundamen-tal interests, security, independence and integrity“ - even without UN mandate (EU Treaty Art. 10 A, 2 and Art. 28 A). The impor-tance of the UN is further diminished - the EU only wants to establish “appropriate forms of co-operation“(Treaty on the Functioning of the Union, 188 P), here the so called “Petersberg tasks” for civil and military missions are defined. These include, for instance, “joint disarmament operations, humanitarian and rescue tasks, military advice and assistance tasks, conflict prevention and peace-keeping tasks, tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peace-making and post-conflict stabilisation. All these tasks may contribute to the fight against terrorism, including by supporting third countries in combating terrorism in their territories.” (Art. 28 B, 1)
…and militarization

A consistent obligation to a culture of peaceful conflict resolution and its appropriate institutions is missing. Where “civilian means“of security policy are mentioned, this refers to the police. The member states are obliged to “progressively … improve their military capabilities. “ This language has to be considered as an obligation for rearmament. All this is supervised by the Defence Agency (EDA), which in the original version was called the” Agency for Armament“. This agency is linked to the EU Council and financed by the member states budget. In addition, procedures are in place which would guarantee “rapid access to appropriations in the Union budget for urgent financing” of “civilian and military assets”. A special military budget – the “start-up fund made up of Member States’ contributions“- would be created (EU Treaty, Art. 28, 3). Alexander Weis, head of the “Defence Agency“ and former head of the Armament Department in the German Defence Ministry, now no longer refrains from announcing 2008 as Europe’s “year of armament“ (FAZ, 24 October, 07). Governments of countries who want even more militarization may join a Permanent Structured Cooperation (EU Treaty, Art. 27,6), a kind of coalition of the willing who “fulfil higher criteria“ with respect to their military capabilities “with a view to the most demanding missions“ (i.e. combat missions). In the case of an attack, all member states are obliged to provide unrestricted assistance. The EU, which had emerged out of a mere economic union, would now turn into a defence alliance.

Domestic Military interventions

The “Solidarity Clause“ permits  – even preventive – military interventions within the EU borders: “The Union shall mobilise all instruments at its disposal, including the military resources made available by the Member States, to prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States; protect democratic institutions and the civilian population from any terrorist attack; assist a Member State in its territory, at the request of its political authorities, in the event of a terrorist attack“ (Art. 188 R). Does that mean that the already softened separation between the police and the military is supposed to be lifted completely?
Foreign, security and military policy without democratic and legal control

The EU Parliament is “briefed“and “heard“in questions of foreign, security and defence policy. Budgetary control – the “sovereign right“of any other parliament – is refused to the EP as far as the military budget goes. Military missions can be ordered without its approval. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) “shall not have jurisdiction with respect to the provisions relating to common foreign and security policy“(TFU, Art. 240 a). The obligation to receive approval by national parliaments for foreign deployments of armed forces is in question, as the common foreign and security policy lies in the sole competence of the EU. Moreover, the protocol on the Permanent Structured Cooperation explicitly provides for “reviewing their national decision-making procedure“. The lack of democratic control in this area also increases the danger that under the cloak of security policy and the “fight against terrorism”, migration and personal freedom rights will be massively restricted.


Harsh policy against refugees and migrants

The regulations in Art. 69 TFU that put asylum seekers together with “illegal migrants“ and “slave traders“, carry the signature of rejection: An integrated border protection system along the exterior border should be built up. The EU immigration policy is supposed to steer the incoming flow - in the interest of supply of cheap labour. Treaties with third countries serve to facilitate the deportation of unwanted people. In anticipation of these regulations, the border agency Frontex was founded in 2005, which patrols the EU´s foreign borders and in the Mediterranean in order to fend off so called “illegals”. Frontex co-operates with autocratic states in North Africa by supplying them with equipment and vehicles, or financing deportation flights, so that the African states will take over part of the dirty work for Europe, proud as it is of its values and human rights. The Frontex budget is the fastest growing budget item in the EU, quadrupling its funds from 2006 to 2008 (taz, 13 November 2007).


EURATOM Treaty provides for privileged promotion of atomic energy

The EURATOM Treaty would remain fully upheld. Its goal is to promote nuclear energy in order to “create the prerequisites for the development of a powerful nuclear industry” (Preamble TFU, Art. 305). Are our politicians thwarting the exit from atomic energy by way of the EU treaties?

Stipulations of the Nice Treaty on neo-liberal economic policy remain valid

Even though, through pressure by the French President Sarkozy, cosmetic changes were made, neo-liberal economic policy still is the basis of this treaty. On the one hand, the regulations of the EU and the EC Treaties in the Nice version apply, and remain unchanged. Even in the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the so called “four basic freedoms of market places“ – free movement of commodities, capital, services and labour - prevail over individual and social rights. A supplementary protocol to the EU Lisbon Treaty stipulates that, the “interior market includes a system ensuring that competition is not distorted. “
Danger for public services

In the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which is becoming obligatory through the EU Lisbon Treaty, the right to free education is guaranteed only in the area of compulsory education. This opens the doors for the introduction of school and tuition fees. Education, including university education, would then fall under the EU definition of economic activities – and thereby under the EU competition law (anti-discrimination act, EU-wide obligation to open competitive bidding, ban on state subsidies, and equal treatment of private and public providers). The member states remain responsible for public services (Services of General Economic Interest). However, they are obliged “to provide, to commission and to fund such services” “in compliance with the Treaties“(TFU, Art. 16), which means they are subject to the pre-eminence of competition law. Trade in services in the social, educational and health sector (WTO-GATS) is explicitly subject to international trade agreements (WTO, EPA). Only if these agreements risk „seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of the Member States to deliver them“, the Council must decide unanimously (TFU, Art. 188 C). These regulations could increase the liberalisation pressure on public services.

We resist: No Europe without us!
For a solidarity based, peaceful,
democratic new foundation of Europe!

Attac is a trans-national initiative supported by many civil organisations in many European countries, asking Europeans of all member states to let the Irish voters know that they would vote NO and that Irish people voting No also do it in the stead of hundreds of millions who are denied a vote.

The European ATTACs demand referendums on the Lisbon Treaty in all member states. Negotiating treaties behind the citizens backs and against citizens needs is unworthy of a democratic Europe.

In the “10 principles for a democratic EU treaty“17 European Attac groups demand that a new and democratic convention should elaborate a treaty. This convention should be elected directly by the citizens of all EU member states and collaborate with the national parliaments.

These demands are shared by civil society organisations from many EU countries (see www.erc2.org/8.0.html)


Imprint:
Signed by the ATTACs of Germany and Austria.
Based on a text of Attac EU Working Group; Stuttgart and Region.
Contact for ATTAC Germany: Elke Schenk: e.schenk@gmx.eu.
Contact for ATTAC Austria: Siegfried Bernhauser: siegfried.bernhauser@omicron.at.
Consolidated treaty: www.mwalther.net/europa/Unionsrecht-Lissabon-MWalther.pdf
Official treaty: www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00014.en07.pdf
“10 principles”: www.joyfuleurope.net/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=210&Itemid=103
More information: www.erc2.org | www.cauc.org
Translation from German: Carla Krüger, Berlin and Attac EU Working Group Stuttgart

[Sub-X]

Vote No to the Treaty of Lisbon!
http://www.cym.ie/documents/Lisbon.pdf

This year the Irish people will have the chance to vote on the Treaty of Lisbon to form a constitution of Europe. The eyes of Europe will be on Ireland, as only we have the opportunity to express our democratic voice at this critical moment in history. The Dutch and
French people have previously rejected this treaty, but now it is being forced upon us, again under a different name.

“Thankfully, they haven’t changed any of the substance.”
—Bertie Ahern, June 2007

For democracy

This Constitution would further increase the power and control of unelected EU elites and civil servants. It takes power away from our
elected national governments and reduces our influence within the Union’s own structures. In short, it builds a “United States of Europe.”

“The Constitution is the capstone of a European federal state.”
—Guy Verhofstadt,Belgian Prime Minister, June 2004

For sovereignty

The Constitution gives primacy to EU law and directives over domestic law. But more importantly, it gives primacy to the European
Court of Justice over national courts in interpreting laws and hearing cases. The ECJ will be answerable only to EU institutions and not to
our national parliaments. Its interest will be to extend its powers; and as the Constitution is amendable once passed without need of
referendum or parliamentary ratification, we are in fact handing a blank cheque of our sovereignty over to unelected bureaucrats.

“Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would it beintelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?”
—Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, July 2007

For public services

A very significant feature of this Constitution, and one that makes it stand out from western-style constitutions, is that it is an economic
blueprint for a privatised Europe. It puts into constitutional law a right-wing economic model, designed by European industrial and
business elites to maximise their profits at our expense as workers and consumers. The Constitution opens our health, education, and
transport services and our natural resources to privatisation and for sale to multinationals.

“A European framework law shall establish the measures in order to achieve the liberalisation of a specific service.”—Article III-147

For workers’ rights

The European Court of Justice recently ruled that a Latvian company,Laval, operating in Sweden can legally pay the Latvian minimum
wage. This ruling serves to undermine completely the terms and conditions won by workers in their own countries, it furthers the
erosion of workers’ rights and the race to the bottom in conditions,and it will serve to increase racism and xenophobia. The further
powers granted the ECJ, the court of final appeal, by the constitution are a very real attack upon workers’ rights.

“The ECJ’s ruling runs roughshod over trade union rights . . . The rulings are poorly reasoned and inconsistent.”—Richard Arthur of Thompson’s(one of the largest law firms in Britain), December 2007

For neutrality

This treaty establishes a military-industrial complex in Europe.Political and military elites will form a common defence and foreign
policy, with an army capable of “peacemaking” missions far from European borders. All this will be done in conjunction with and
compatible with the nuclear-armed and nuclear-focused NATO. While Irish neutrality is more a myth than reality at present, it does not
mean we condemn young Irish soldiers to die far from home for EU interests.

“Battle groups could be used to go to war. Why did the EU create the battle groups? It is not just to help rebuild a country. The battle groups are not for building schools. We shouldn’t think the EU is for soft power and NATO for tough power.”—Jaap de Hoop Scheffer,secretary-general of NATO, March 2005



The Connolly Youth Movement asks all those who support democracy to reject this treaty and to vote No in the referendum.

[Sub-X]

Dev warns us from beyond the grave
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=321
16.05.2008
By Tom Prendeville

In a prophetic warning from beyond the grave, it has emerged that Eamon de Valera spoke out over 50 years ago about the dangers of becoming entangled in a European Union.

It came in a speech to the Dail on July 12, 1955 - almost 53 years to the day before the vote on the Lisbon Treaty - when the founder of Fianna Fail had returned from a meeting in Strasbourg.

Dev had been to a council of Europe meeting at a time when Ireland was been courted as a member of a new European alliance.

In a speech to a packed chamber, the then Taoiseach warned Ireland could lose its independence, control of the economy and become subject to laws that were not in our interests. Many of these outcomes are feared by Lisbon No campaigners.

And in the run-up to the June 12 vote, the words of one of Ireland’s greatest political figures may be significant for people more than half a century on.

Incredibly, Eamon de Valera’s stark message also warned about the dangers of a European Constitution and getting entangled in European-led military adventures, over which we would have no control. The events he warned so clearly and unequivocally about are now upon us, say anti-treaty campaigners.

He said: “We have always realised that we are one nation and that, as far as physical resources were concerned, our resources were not great. We also realise that, small as were our physical resources, there were spiritual ones which were of great value; and we never doubted that our nation, though a small one, in the material sense, could play a very important part in international affairs. In a Council of Europe it would have been unwise for our people to enter into a political federation which would mean that you had a European parliament deciding the economic circumstances, for example, of our life.

"For economic and other reasons we had refused to be satisfied with a representative of, say, one in six, as was our representative in the British parliament. Our representative in the European Assembly was, I think, something like four out of 120. That is, instead of being out-voted on matters that we would have regarded as important interests to us by five or six to one, we would have been out-voted by 30 or 40 to one".

We did not strive to get out of that domination [British] of our affairs by outside force, or we did not get out of that position to get into a worse one.

“One of the things that made me unhappy at Strasbourg was that I saw that at the first meeting of the Assembly, instead of trying to provide organs for co-operation, there was an attempt to provide a full-blooded political constitution, there were members who were actually dividing themselves into socialists parties, and so on.”

On the issue of neutrality, he added:

“In every war fought, those who are fighting will always find good and moral causes for the fight…if the world does not learn wisdom and if there are to be future wars, there will be no dearth of good causes which war will be supposed to further. A small nation has to be extremely cautious when it enters into alliances which bring it, willy nilly, into those wars…we would not be consulted as to the terms on which it should enter”.